4 ms·

I'm not disputing that they proved their point, but this is triggering one of my pet peeves about common misunderstandings of Morse code. Timing is critical in

I'm not disputing that they proved their point, but this is triggering one of my pet peeves about common misunderstandings of Morse code. Timing is critical in Morse code. You can't just write out a bunch of dashes and dots to transcribe it without clearly transcribing the rests between dots and dashes as well. They haven't given us the rests at all, so all the info they end up having is: dot dash dot dot dash dot dot dot dot dot dot dot dash dash dot dash dot dot dot dash dot dot And that can be interpreted in any number of different possible ways besides "REDHANDED". E.g. it could also be "AU5EWRFE", or any of thousands of different interpretations (actually probably a lot more than that; this would be a fun programming problem). They should have used a binary encoding; 22 bits (all they have given us) is not enough information to uniquely encode the string "REDHANDED". Once you include the short rests that are needed, we're talking 44 binary bits or 22 ternary bits. And if you want the long rests to distinguish properly the spaces between words, then 22 ternary bits won't do it; you need the full 44 binary bits.

Arnavion 6y ago
>They should have used a binary encoding; 22 bits (all they have given us) is not enough information to uniquely encode the string "REDHANDED". The fact that the sequence can be interpreted as REDHANDED with a particular way of grouping the input is just being cute. Regardless of the grouping, it is a binary encoding of a 22-bit number, and so would have a one-in-2^22 chance of being reproduced at random. Edit: To clarify: You're saying they should've mentioned 22-bits in the context of binary digits without mentioning Morse code, and if they did want to bring up Morse code they should've used trits or more bits to encode the stops. I'm saying that the fact that their 22-bit sequence can be interpreted in Morse code as a relevant word is just dressing, and does not detract from the point that the sequence was likely copied. Put another way, if someone tried to counter by saying their sequence could've been generated independently because "AU5EWRFE" and many other strings also encode to the same sequence, it would not affect the facts at all.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  I think you missed the first sentence of my post.
  - Arnavion 6y ago
    Nope, I didn't. Your first sentence says: >but this is triggering one of my pet peeves about common misunderstandings of Morse code. and my post is about how there is no misunderstanding.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      There is a misunderstanding because anyone who properly understood Morse code would never represent it in this manner where it's indistinguishable from a large number of other possible strings.
      - Arnavion 6y ago
        There is no misunderstanding because it was never the intention to use the bitstring to represent a unique word in Morse code in the first place. Instead, Morse code was merely used as a convenient method to devise a bitstring from a relevant word.

Arnavion 6y ago

>They should have used a binary encoding; 22 bits (all they have given us) is not enough information to uniquely encode the string "REDHANDED". The fact that the sequence can be interpreted as REDHANDED with a particular way of grouping the input is just being cute. Regardless of the grouping, it is a binary encoding of a 22-bit number, and so would have a one-in-2^22 chance of being reproduced at random. Edit: To clarify: You're saying they should've mentioned 22-bits in the context of binary digits without mentioning Morse code, and if they did want to bring up Morse code they should've used trits or more bits to encode the stops. I'm saying that the fact that their 22-bit sequence can be interpreted in Morse code as a relevant word is just dressing, and does not detract from the point that the sequence was likely copied. Put another way, if someone tried to counter by saying their sequence could've been generated independently because "AU5EWRFE" and many other strings also encode to the same sequence, it would not affect the facts at all.

CydeWeys 6y ago
I think you missed the first sentence of my post.
- Arnavion 6y ago
  Nope, I didn't. Your first sentence says: >but this is triggering one of my pet peeves about common misunderstandings of Morse code. and my post is about how there is no misunderstanding.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    There is a misunderstanding because anyone who properly understood Morse code would never represent it in this manner where it's indistinguishable from a large number of other possible strings.
    - Arnavion 6y ago
      There is no misunderstanding because it was never the intention to use the bitstring to represent a unique word in Morse code in the first place. Instead, Morse code was merely used as a convenient method to devise a bitstring from a relevant word.