steve_h
Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 19 2008,22:27) | | Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 19 2008,14:32) | | Aw, come on! He was only off by a little bit! |
Well sure, but that little bit was a fourth of a nibble!!!1!! |
Actually, he said one letter had changed, not one bit.
However, a two-bit change is well below the UPB and you don't calculate CSI just by counting the bits - you are supposed to work out how specific, the change was.
For instance. If you change 2 bits at random in the url, you are most likely to break the URL - some bits can be changed because the URL isn't case-sensitive. A change that is more likely to be successful than not does not indicate design. However I calculate 63 out of 64 2-bit changes to the URL would break it.
Therefore not design !
If on the other hand, you calculate the number of possible 2-bit changes that DS could have applied to the internet in an attempt to break the URL, and calculate the specificity by assuming the english phrase "BREAKS LINK" as an independant specification you get:
log_2 [ (8x2x10^16)^2 / (2x10^5)^2 * k * Z ]
where 2x10^16 is a the number of bytes Google processes each day [1]; 2x10^5 is the number of words in my limited english dictionary [2] ; k is the number you first thought of; and Z is a number between 1 and infinity which reflects how acquanted you are with UD revisionism. Then you conclude:
Therefore design !
[1] man in pub.
[2] man in pub
|
