Alien archeology and other mysteries: Thread 10 - The Canonn

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Belthize

Belthize
publicstaticvoid said:
The beauty is that these are replicated by a computer. The display alone is capable of displaying 2^36 different words. That's irrelevant to what the relics actually says. To a computer the glyphs are still 1s and 0s. When comparing objects like orbs and caskets it must make a binary representation of these objects to compare them. If you figure out their binary representation and assign them to a code book we can begin to decipher the relic.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm missing something, you seem persistent in referencing the fact that at some layer they're 1s and 0s (1) but I don't see how it's relevant. If you present it with a casket and it makes a specific glyph every time and then present it with an orb and it makes a different glyph every time the one could deduce the first glyph means casket and the 2nd means orb, Binary never enters into it.

Again though maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're making.

1) Which doesn't necessarily follow. Their computers can be any base, ours are binary due to the ease of comparing states to some reference voltage given our current technology. They may have opted for binary for much the same reasons we did but given sufficient time it's conceivable that what was optimal design for the problems they were solving would be better addressed with higher bases (e.g. base 4 to match their number of fingers).
 
Last edited:

Jorki Rasalas

Jorki Rasalas
Thatchinho said:
Lots of thoughts, but the key thing really is whether anything we do changes the patterns on the obelisks. If it does then there's an open avenue for exploration, if it doesn't then the avenue's a no go.

Personally I suspect that looking at things in terms of binary isn't going to be the way to go, and that what we're seeing is more akin to how our writing is shown on a dot matrix display. Just my suspicion at this stage though, and could be wrong! :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure I remember some comment (by Ram Tah?) along the lines that the glyphs resemble Braille & I know I posted in the dim & distant past a link to the Braille site
 

publicstaticvoid

publicstaticvoid
Belthize said:
I feel like I'm missing something, you seem persistent in referencing the fact that at some layer they're 1s and 0s (1) but I don't see how it's relevant. If you present it with a casket and it makes a specific glyph every time and then present it with an orb and it makes a different glyph every time the one could deduce the first glyph means casket and the 2nd means orb, Binary never enters into it.

Again though maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're making.

1) Which doesn't necessarily follow. Their computers can be any base, ours are binary due to the ease of comparing states to some reference voltage given our current technology. They may have opted for binary for much the same reasons we did but given sufficient time it's conceivable that what was optimal design for the problems they were solving would be better addressed with higher bases (e.g. base 4 to match their number of fingers).
Click to expand...

Okay, so think of it like this, the binary representation of the glyph is the glyph. I can literally repeat the glyph by hand using the binary representation. There are 36 pixels, which are either on or off. You can represent that as a bitString of 36 bits either on or off. Instead of using filled triangles we are using 1 to represent on. This means that like the glyph there are 2^36 different permutations. If you count in binary up to 2^36 you will represent every possible permutation in the display.
 

Factabulous

Factabulous
Ibastavd said:
Delighted to see this in the beta notes! Might find Tech 6 later tonight!!!!

o7
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I saw that it was found on the discord channel, but I'd like to see for myself :)

Now where did I put those old maps, and why did I ask Rizal to 'tidy' the front page :(
 

publicstaticvoid

publicstaticvoid
Jorki Rasalas said:
I'm sure I remember some comment (by Ram Tah?) along the lines that the glyphs resemble Braille & I know I posted in the dim & distant past a link to the Braille site
Click to expand...

Even braille can be represented in binary. That is the beauty of only having 2 states, either the particular area is raised or it is not. This means that even braille can be represented in binary.
 
Last edited:

publicstaticvoid

publicstaticvoid
"The second revision, published in 1837, was the first binary form of writing developed in the modern era."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braille

It's obvious I need to start citing so you guys understand why I am using binary. If you think of the filled triangles as raised areas that makes it binary as well. What form it is in is irrelevant, this is only a representation that allows you to handle each object as a number. It doesn't loose any value in transformation to binary.
 
Last edited:

Belthize

Belthize
publicstaticvoid said:
Okay, so think of it like this, the binary representation of the glyph is the glyph. I can literally repeat the glyph by hand using the binary representation. There are 36 pixels, which are either on or off. You can represent that as a bitString of 36 bits either on or off. Instead of using filled triangles we are using 1 to represent on. This means that like the glyph there are 2^36 different permutations. If you count in binary up to 2^36 you will represent every possible permutation in the display.
Click to expand...

If it's just a way to represent the glyph I'd find the glyph itself more useful than a binary encoding, particularly since we're dealing with a few 10s to maybe 100 actual glyphs rather than 68 billion. If there are only a few hundred unique glyphs just giving them am agreed upon decimal designation is sufficient. In terms of analysis I can visually differentiate two glyphs in a fraction of a second. Comparing two 36 digit binary strings requires more effort, is susceptible to trans-coding errors and possibly loses less obvious contextual information if a state change from one glyph to another represents motion. For example consider the sign language for 'rainbow', it's not a static sign. As I mention in my post above I suspect the structure of the glyph actually represents finger/hand/arm placement at some level, much easier to see that in the glyph than a binary encoding.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that the alpha/beta/gamma site layouts represent astronomical objects (stars or star classes, planets, gas giants etc), and the glyphs are a primer to which is which with counters and directions which ultimately direct to some repeating message encoded in the obelisks and beacons which provide a map to some, as yet undiscovered, location. If the glyphs are handsigns describing well understood objects (gas giant) we'll more quickly adapt to recognizing that's the glyph for gas giant than that's the binary string for gas giant.
 

publicstaticvoid

publicstaticvoid
Belthize said:
If it's just a way to represent the glyph I'd find the glyph itself more useful than a binary encoding, particularly since we're dealing with a few 10s to maybe 100 actual glyphs rather than 68 billion. If there are only a few hundred unique glyphs just giving them am agreed upon decimal designation is sufficient. In terms of analysis I can visually differentiate two glyphs in a fraction of a second. Comparing two 36 digit binary strings requires more effort, is susceptible to trans-coding errors and possibly loses less obvious contextual information if a state change from one glyph to another represents motion. For example consider the sign language for 'rainbow', it's not a static sign. As I mention in my post above I suspect the structure of the glyph actually represents finger/hand/arm placement at some level, much easier to see that in the glyph than a binary encoding.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that the alpha/beta/gamma site layouts represent astronomical objects (stars or star classes, planets, gas giants etc), and the glyphs are a primer to which is which with counters and directions which ultimately direct to some repeating message encoded in the obelisks and beacons which provide a map to some, as yet undiscovered, location. If the glyphs are handsigns describing well understood objects (gas giant) we'll more quickly adapt to recognizing that's the glyph for gas giant than that's the binary string for gas giant.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to pull your hair but you are incorrect. Binary representation is the most versatile representation today. It is far easier to determine inconsistencies in binary than RNG decimals. You are seriously over thinking this. It doesn't get more simple and fundamental than binary representation. For quite a few reasons. And yes even the sign for rainbow can be represented in binary and quite easily. Either you can do it frame by frame or a composite of all frames.
 
Last edited:

Factabulous

Factabulous
Ibastavd said:
:D :D
Click to expand...
Beta Tech6
Tech 6 found from site GS43 P01 Orb + Totem as predicted. Had to go to a Beta site to find an orb, which was ... annoying.

Also - anyone else noticed that the Ancient Relics seem to show up from further away (150m+) - I don't remember them doing that before, unless it was a 2.3 change?? (Haven't done much roving around ruins for a while).
 

Meme the little Thargoid

Meme the little Thargoid
Edit: Wrong thread... my fault.

Hope they fix the tec 6 in the game fast so we can collect it in the non beta version and have not wait to long for it. :3
 
Last edited:

PanPiper.

PanPiper.
Factabulous said:
Also - anyone else noticed that the Ancient Relics seem to show up from further away (150m+) - I don't remember them doing that before, unless it was a 2.3 change?? (Haven't done much roving around ruins for a while).
Click to expand...

Noticed that earlier when tried the beta out. Wasnt in the patch notes, but a improvement.
Several objects when on the ground in SRv, have a far greater targetable and radar range than before.

Spawned at a barnacle and noticed the changes there.

Seems there are two ranges for different objects.
Barnacle Main body, now targetable from 75m and scannable.
Barnacle spikes further, up to 250m

Few tests on ranges of objects, barnacle body being shorter range was strange but not unexpected, might see the same range on data points but not tested that yet.

Spikes and also tested on material spawn objects , outcrop etc. They first appear on radar <200m but remain on radar <250m . Also scannable with data link at that range.

Did see the relics when i visited the ruins appearing far further ,, was nice. although didnt test the other objects, some didnt seem to be same range , maybe 75m?

Thinking back now,, when i shot MA off the barnacle spike that lost target lock when it went up,, shouldnt have,, maybe cargo is 75m range , same would apply to other ancient items too , appearing when only close.
But static objects, Ancient relic when in relic tower, or MA in the MA spike, and materials in smaller spikes appearing at the longer range <250m

I would then imagine a cargo rack near a wreck site would appear as a longer range compared to cannisters of cargo nearby.

Only briefly tested earlier on, but theres some interesting range changes, for when they become visible on radar and targetable. Wasnt mensioned in the patch notes from what i could see.

Round it up,, cannisters or objects now <75m and Container objects <250m ( first appears at <200m )
 
Last edited:

Jorki Rasalas

Jorki Rasalas
publicstaticvoid said:
Even braille can be represented in binary. That is the beauty of only having 2 states, either the particular area is raised or it is not. This means that even braille can be represented in binary.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I was just responding to Thatchinho's remark about dot-matrix, because that was what struck me about Braille.
I tried to find Ram Tah's remark but failed; maybe I was thinking about one of the nonogram solutions.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom