Archive for the ‘The Unknown’ Category

Icehouse

Tuesday, April 26th, 2016

1

It’s always cold inside the icehouse
Though the rivers never freeze
There’s a girl inside the icehouse
I can see her clearly through the trees

2

And now she’s dreaming of a new love
And she hopes he’ll be there soon
But she’s got so long to wait for him
Because he needs another year to get there

There’s no love inside the icehouse

3

The devil lives inside the icehouse
At least that’s what the old ones say
He came a long time ago
He came here in the winter snow
Now it’s colder every day

4

She’s still dreaming through the summer
And she’s hoping through the spring
She says she’s got no time for winter nights
She doesn’t notice as the days grow darker
She can’t remember getting any older

There’s no love inside the icehouse

5

Words (c) Iva Davies

In The Cards

Sunday, March 6th, 2016

Go and get a deck of cards, shuffle it, and deal it out in the order you shuffled it. You may find this hard to believe, but it’s extraordinarily likely that no one ever has shuffled cards into the same order you just did.

random cards

You’ve probably heard this before, since it’s one of those quite interesting facts that does the rounds. But in case you haven’t, the reason is that the amount of different ways a 52 card deck can be ordered is astonishingly high. The number is so big it’s difficult to parse:

8065817517094387857166063685640376
6975289505440883277824000000000000

Yes that’s one number written across two lines. To get an idea how large this is, it’s significantly higher than the number of stars in the universe, the number of atoms in your body, and the number of seconds that have elapsed since the universe was created in the big bang.

I’ll take it one step further. Depending on who you ask, between 60 and 108 billion humans have ever lived, so we can use an average of 80 billion. Applying the Doomsday Argument to this average suggests that about 1.2 trillion humans will ever live (and there’s a blog post on that topic itself!).

So in the entirety of human history, if every human ever lived to an average of 70 years and spent every single second of their lives shuffling cards the entire output of humanity would only correspond to a miniature subset of the total possible permutations of a 52 card deck (3.3E-45% to be accurate).

So shuffle that deck, deal it out, and be impressed with a creation that only you have made.

intellivision

This has an interesting relevance in the field of gambling, which requires randomized deals lest the player guess the card order. Using human dealers, decks can be shuffled in a way that makes them almost completely random (although studies have shown that a virgin deck must be shuffled anywhere from 4 to 7 times to eliminate the order inherent in the way it was packaged). But these days the vast majority of deck shuffling is done by computers, and it’s not trivial to make computers do things truly randomly.

The very first computer games that included card shuffling had extremely primitive random number generation and could only return limited unique decks. Random number generators require a ‘seed’ (ie. a start value upon which all others are based) and every sequence based on the same seed is identical. Games on the Atari 2600 and Intellivision (shown above) typically used hardware values or player input (such as the number of frame refreshes that occurred before the player pushed the start button) as seeds, but even then were limited to usually only a couple of hundred unique decks. Given enough time and effort therefore, you could know the entire order of cards based upon the first few dealt.

As time moved on the algorithms became more sophisticated, and so too did the random number generators, but even then it was possible to predict deck orders if you had enough information. In 1999 an online casino, in an attempt to demonstrate their games were not rigged, actually posted their RNG code online. Someone got it, worked out how they seeded (based on the clock time, as I did in my polycap simulation), and actually wrote their own code that was able to reproduce perfectly the shuffling of the games they were playing online.

So we get to today, where RNG’s use very creative ideas to seed themselves with truly random seeds (such as using code to convert video frames captured from random Youtube videos or 1 second of white noise from a radio into seeds). But there is still a problem in that the range of randomly generated numbers is still limited to about 4E38. In short, you can’t generate a number between 1 and 8.06E67, which means you cannot generate one number for each possible deck permutation.

There are ways around this (hint: using only a single coin you can generate two random values) but it makes the task of writing a deck shuffling simulator that can account for every possibly permutation non trivial.

I think.

vp

So as a result of this thought experiment, Bernard’s going to do it! Here’s my design document:

1) Assign all 52 cards a random number
2) Sort them
3) Output shuffled deck

It’s trivial stuff, and should only take him a femtosecond or two to implement. But the true fun is in the testing! For what I’m really interested in is how many unique shuffles are completed before a repeat occurs. Therefore the output (deck order) will need to be saved as well as the time it takes for each shuffle to be completed. Plus, since 52! is insanely large (the world will end before his computer shuffles that many times) I’d say saving the first 15 cards + the time the shuffle occurred is sufficient to do some statistical analysis.

So there you go Bernard, there’s your challenge. Write the code, run it 1.3 trillion times*/**, save the first 15 cards in each deck and the time the shuffle was performed and then analyze it to see if any sequence repeated.

Let us know the results 🙂

* I’ll assume you have a modern Pentium running about 100k MIPS, and that this code requires maybe 1000 operations to execute (a big guess there; the sort could take many more), which means about 12000 seconds or 3.5 hours per experiment. However writing results will slow it down a lot I suspect. Good luck!

** A very rough mental calculation tells me this may be a file size in the order  or 17Tb. I hope you have a lot of space! Even more luck to you sir!!

Bunyips!

Tuesday, October 27th, 2015

This time I’ll detail a uniquely Australian cryptid: the ‘bunyip’.

Bunyip02

The origins of this creature are somewhat murky, but it is believed that in the early 1800s, as settlers migrated away from Sydney inwards from the coast and down toward Victoria, tales began to emerge about a large water-creature called the bunyip by the Aboriginals. While the descriptions seemed fantastic Europeans had already been so surprised by other unusual Australian fauna – especially the platypus – as to take them seriously.

The bunyip was said to be quite large, and while mostly docile could threaten a man and was indeed responsible for some Aboriginal deaths. Early settlers were suitable concerned about running across such a beast, especially since the Aboriginals were very scared of them. The actual appearance of a bunyip though was unclear, despite efforts by scientists (including Banks) to pin them down. It was generally believed to be semi-aquatic, large, and somewhat mammalian but with birdlike features (especially the head). What was agreed on was that the bunyip could produce a loud and alarming moan, which could be heard at night from great distances.

Bunyip_(1935)

In 1845 a Victorian newspaper reported the discovery of bones believed to be those of a bunyip. A couple of years later the Australian Museum in Sydney even put a bunyip skull on exhibit, but it was later discovered to be a deformed horses skull. By this time, with none having actually been seen by reputable witnesses, the creature was transitioning into folklore, and it’s status as an actual living creature was fading fast.

But sightings continued including a widely publisized (at the time) account in 1852 by an infamous escaped convict who lived with an Aboriginal tribe for decades. He claimed to have seen bunyips several times, describing them as timid but dangerous creatures that inhabited lakes and preferred to eat women. He had only seem them half-submerged, and said they were covered in feathers. Aboriginals still insisted the creature was real, although accounts of it having supernatural powers made these claims increasingly difficult to believe.

Bunyip_1890

By the depression, the word ‘bunyip’ had become synonymous for ‘impostor’ in Australia, and few seriously believed the creature existed. Scientists and anthropologists had come up with several explanations for the origin of the creature, including:
– Fur seals, which were known to travel far inland in some Australian river systems
– Crocodiles, which can grow to be enormous especially in northern Australia
– An as-yet-undiscovered species of otter or giant eel
– A surviving Diprotodon, which is an extinct aquatic wombat-like creature bigger than a hippo (this was a prevalent theory apparently)
– An ancestral memory of a duck-billed or other aquatic dinosaur that had somehow survived into the early Aboriginal era

Even these explanations faded in time, and these days the bunyip is considered no more real  than other Aboriginal Dreamtime fauna such as The Rainbow Serpent or the great frog Tiddalik.

aus1377 aus1379

Those two stamps contrast the bunyip of myth with the (presumed) origin of the creature. Bunyips today exist only mostly in the world of childrens books and movies or advertising, and look a bit like this statue of one in canberra:

AlexanderBunyip

While still included in the ranks of cryptids, recent sightings of bunyips  – or even faked sightings – are almost nonexistent. This is a creature that seems to either have never existed at all, or be so good at hiding in the hidden parts of Australia that no one believes it ever existed at all. Which theory do you prefer?

Wildlife XI: Return of the Robo Camera

Monday, September 14th, 2015

This time I left the camera out for about 6 weeks, and it took a staggering 800+ photos. Incredibly the batteries still had 30% charge left after all this time (which included a series of extremely hot days). I’m really pleased with this camera overall.

Looking through all those photos for hidden gems was a bit of a drag though, since about 775 of them had nothing of much interest 🙂

Let’s start with the squirrel shots for mum:

PRMS0173

PRMS0180

PRMS0468

Doing a quick tail comparison tells me the first and last shots are of different squirrels, which is entirely likely given the number of them living around here. The selfie shot is funny isn’t it?

You can see I switched the position of the camera after the first month. This was to catch a very particular target on film, but I’m sad to say I failed. I’ll try again though, and I’ll leave you in suspense as to what I’m after…

The rest of the shots were of the usual cats:

PRMS0254

PRMS0175

Exactly two (consecutive) frames of a deer:

PRMS0509

PRMS0510

A bunny:

PRMS0479

This creature I am having trouble identifying (but is most likely the fluffy white cat):

PRMS0174

And a few shots of possum bums (and no I’m not joking).

Still no foxes. Still no ground hogs. Still no wolves, bears or even bigfeet.

The search continues…

A Mystery Finally Solved!

Wednesday, August 19th, 2015

I like Mark Gatiss. While there’s no doubt he’s a bit of a genre gadfly, he’s certainly literature, accomplished, and seems to share a lot of my interests. A lifelong fan of horror and science fiction, he’s forged a career in writing and acting that includes such shows as (new) Doctor Who and Sherlock. I’ve liked most of his work, read a couple of his books, and watched (or listened to) quite a few of his documentaries. In short, this is a guy worth paying attention to. Plus, Jon Pertwee is His Doctor too.

Yesterday I watched his three-episode History of Horror series that he made for BBC some years back. It’s all on YouTube, but if you only watch one episode I recommend the second. As I watched it yesterday I felt a great sense of relief wash over me as a lifelong mystery was solved. 

 
Let’s cut back about 30-something years. It was a dark night, past our bedtime, and mum and dad had started watching a horror movie. Being a bit of a (nascent) buff, I wanted to watch as well, and sat down with them to enjoy it. I recall shots of fields and forests, and someone plowing a field, and then a terrifying and eerie shot of a skull with a living eye in it. This very shot, to be specific: 

 
It terrified me, and I’m sure you can see why. Mum quickly changed the channel and packed us off to bed, but I didn’t forget the image quickly. In fact I never forgot it, and have wondered for my entire life what the film was and why the farmer found this in his field and what happened next! I’d made attempts over the years to deduce the identity of the film, and have watched countless british horror films of the 1960s and 70s always wondering when – if! – I’d find the one with this unforgettable image.

Until yesterday the mystery was unsolved. But thanks to Gatiss’ documentary, I now know the identity of the film: 

 
The film is called Satan’s Skin or The Blood On Satan’s Claw and was made in England in 1970. It seems like an entirely disturbing and remarkable horror film about a rural village influenced to depravity and evil by The Devil. I think it’s quite right that my mum didn’t let me watch it 30+ years ago!

Of course now I know the identity of the film the next step is to actually watch it. This may prove difficult due to the DVD being out of print and the Blu-Ray being UK region only (and very expensive). It’s not available on Amazon prime either. But I’m a patient sort, and it’s now added to my list of other films that I intend to one day sit down and enjoy. I wonder if I’ll find it as creepy now as I did when I was a child?