3 ms·
Not only this concept has a great deal of triviality, because everything you can digitally encode will have a corresponding prime (often you can change the enco
by antirez 6y ago
Not only this concept has a great deal of triviality, because everything you can digitally encode will have a corresponding prime (often you can change the encoding slightly, yet the binary format is still valid, so you can perform random changes and run a fast primality test, until you find a good candidate).
It is also a reversible concept: you can create an "illegal painting" by encoding a number in the painting, so that interpreting the painting in some way (like, splitting it in a X*Y grid, and assigning 1 to the squares where the red component in RGB is greater than G, 0 otherwise) will result in such number.
What's the gist of all this? That reality can be represented by numbers and the other way around, however numbers representing illegal digital entities (violating copyright or other laws) are so unlikely to happen by chance, that they need to be chosen explicitly to have such a representation: the illegal prime is just a different way to write the same thing in a file, thus is the same blatant law violation, and the fact they happen to have a prime number (very dense and common numbers) is not interesting at all.
- batch12 6y ago> What's the gist of all this? The point, per the article, is a protest against the censorship of information. People may not think twice about making a computer program illegal. However, banning a number would get more attention. The point is exactly as you have noted-- it's the same thing.