3 ms·
>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 t
by 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 agoI think you missed the first sentence of my post.
- Arnavion 6y agoNope, 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 agoThere 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 agoThere 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.