The Preamble Puzzle

February 17, 2000 [ v2 current ] [ versions 1 ]

I'm in the process of defining a new data format for the Metaface. Inclusive in the concept is protection against obsolescence. In fact, the data stream is meant to be decipherable by any reasonably intelligent being given time, if it includes the 'preamble'.

The crux of the matter is Unstated Assumptions. What is the smallest set of assumptions you can demand, and from there, built to universality? Can you start with a minimal set that allows anyone picking up the 'message' to understand it? Essentially self-evident? I think the answer is yes.

In a sense, it's a lot like the SETI messages which we sent from Aracebo. Anyone with a decent grasp of mathematics1 and computing should be able to 'recognize' the initial assumptions in the preamble, and from there the rest is self-expressing. Hence the name, "self-expressing structures", or if you prefer, "Bitstreams for Aliens".

I'm halfway through the preamble, but am worried about the bridging from some of the simple concepts to the more complex. I firmly believe the whole thing is decipherable to anyone of sufficient intelligence or patience. (but 'sufficient' may mean 'quite high') Since the germ of the idea came from here, I've come back to offer what I've done so far.

I've been intentionally vague, because I'd love to see if you guys can work it out from the preamble. If so, then I've succeeded. If not, I learn something about my unstated assumptions. I'd be prepared to bet thatDanny could work it out in a day or two.

So, do you want the puzzle first? Or the answers?

Jeremy Lee | Orinoco

Footnotes

1I'm still not convinced by the "Mathematics as a universal language" meme. The universe doesn't count. But it does compute. Turing may be more fundamental than Pythagoras. After all, "counting" is a process.