ANTILOG_22Mar15a

###

13:08 2015-03-22

* I am working on my mathematical fluency, my procedural fluency;

* To become fluent in the language of mathematics, I'm trying to learn to use terms like "intractable quantities" or "infeasibly large", "unfathomably minute", "arbitrarily closely", "almost surely", "vanishingly small", and so on;

* I have been contemplating the idea of a universal image generator;

* The image generator basically takes a format, say a 200 pixel x 200 pixel square and GENERATES ALL POSSIBLE CONFIGURATIONS of that image space;

* The number of possible images in a similar image space is astronomically large, yet FINITE;

* What you get, though, are mostly patterns of random dots; You get combinations of pixel location and color value, but the unversal generator mostly produced homogeneous "noise images";

* One could potentially categorize generated images into categories of Intelligible vs. Unintelligible;

* The majority of possible images would be in the Unintelligible category; all nearly indistinguishable from pure noise or pure noise functions;

* One could speak of "meaningful pictures" or "valid pictures";

* The space of images is infeasibly large for even the "perceptually distinguishable" images provided by the universal visual pattern generator;

* I like to think of it as a toold for making "interesting noise";

* In real practical reality, most designs reflect some internal logic rather than being completely random;

* Every finite set is computable, so the universal visual pattern generator CAN produce all possible images for a given pixel space; it will just take an inordinate amount of time;

* Note: We can view all possible functions of time as signals;

* Note: The sample space of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment;

* Therefore, the universal visual pattern generator is experimental, acting in sample space of possible outcomes of experimental process;

* We are speaking of the "universal set" of possible images;

* A finite number of things can be represented in bounded pixel space;

* One can see a given configuration of pixel space as an "encoding" of that space;

* Only an infinitely sized canvas can truly have an infinite number of possible configurations of its image space;

* The "image universe" is a noise field;

* Again, image space is predominantly filled with noise, the universe is majoritively noisy;

* See: DEPICTION, in 2D representations;

* Note: think of moral temperature reasings as scalar fields; think NOISE FIELD;

* An infinite canvas with infinite possible values for each pixel, that is the only way to achieve true infinity in image space;

* What we have essentially is a bounded scalar field;

* It's a noise field because it is predominantly noise images;

* Think of generating functions, the generating function that generates the set of possible images;

* Is the set WELL-ORDERED?;

* The set of all images in image space will contain a subset of all possible images called "Impressionist paintings", as well as "Cubist paintings" and "Pop art";

* How can we reason about the contents of the image space?;

* What is a "cubist image", what is its minimal length description?;

* If we speak only of a 200 pixel by 200 pixel image where each pixel can only take on one of two values, Black or White, then we can posit the existence of the "Completely White Canvas" vs. "The Completely Black Canvas"; Every other possible configuration of black and white pixels falls in between those two extremities;

* (TO BE CONTINUED...)

i agree ... now that you have drawn my attention to this ... thanks ... please continue ...

ReplyDelete