Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu


Views: 36557
Favorited: 250
Submitted: 11/02/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to Vadi E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend



Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #12 - retrofresh (11/02/2013) [+] (2 replies)
All that was in my mind was... FIND FAMOUS PEOPLE *******
#26 - lech ONLINE (11/02/2013) [+] (18 replies)
Ok, so let's go over this, carefully.
My screen is 1920x1200, but because that's a bit unusual, I'll use 1920x1080 (That's 1920 pixels wide, 1080 pixels tall)
Area of a rectangle is length x width. Meaning, our 1920x1080 monitor has 2,073,600 pixels.
Now, let's look at a single pixel, shall we?
The picture shows that there's usually a red, green, and blue led for each individual pixel. Each color, red, green, or blue, has a number that correlates to the power of the led. That number is between 0 and 255. Because of limitations, computers use binary to represent data. A way of representing data is called hexadecimal. Which is 2^8, or 256. Since 0 can also be a number, we have a system where numbers can only go from 0 to 255.
Since we're dealing with 3 leds (blue, green, and red), we have: 2^8 * 2^8 * 2^8.
Which is 16,777,216 different combinations of the pixels.
Now we have to multiple 16,777,216 with the amount of pixels we have, 2,073,600. This turns out to be 34,789,235,097,600 different combinations. This is almost 35 trillion, but it's NOT infinite. It's a lot of pictures. But 34,789,235,097,601 is bigger than the answer we got.
#92 - Fwimble (11/03/2013) [+] (1 reply)
User avatar #64 - skubasteve (11/02/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Would it show me what it was like before the big bang?
#67 to #64 - anonymous (11/02/2013) [-]
#107 - razorlupus **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
You can also look at bewbs
You can also look at bewbs
#20 - mooproxy (11/02/2013) [+] (13 replies)
#90 - deletedmyaccount (11/03/2013) [+] (1 reply)
And yet instead of these possibilities, we make gifs like this.
And yet instead of these possibilities, we make gifs like this.
#15 - icametochewgum (11/02/2013) [+] (10 replies)
Another paradox is what's known as "Gabriel's Horn"

If you take the the equation y = 1/x from [1, infinity), and rotate it about the x-axis, you produce an object of infinite surface area, but finite volume.
What this means is that you could fill the horn with a finite amount of paint, but filling the horn with that much paint still would not provide enough paint to cover the outside of the horn.
#8 - cjwers (11/02/2013) [-]
If a program/website were made to continually show every combination of pixels:
Everything from FunnyJunk would show up
Every movie clip would show up
Every porn clip would show up
Even the most bizarre porn clips would show up
The nastiest stuff never thought imaginable would show up
If I had a point, I think I made it.
If not, enjoy the thoughts
User avatar #82 - thedarkestrogue (11/03/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Woo. people figuring out how a screen works. So ******* mind blowing.

I might be a cynical asshole.
User avatar #6 - torchrose (11/02/2013) [+] (3 replies)
And yet we can't view the true color of cyan on a screen

GG technology
User avatar #137 - iamgandalfsagbag **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [+] (1 reply)
im too ******* high for this ****
#63 - anonymous (11/02/2013) [+] (2 replies)
lets cut this down to size
say we're dealing with only black and white images

not only that, lets keep them small, a simple monochrome 16x16 grid, each pixel is either black or white, a simple 256 bit image. It seems EXTREMELY small. But even with this really minimal set up, you still have 2^256 = 1.1579*10^77, or approximately equivalent to ten percent of the number of atoms in the observable universe.

If you had a billion monitors on earth, each displaying a bunch of these possibilities in a 100x100 grid of distinct images (1600x1600) pixels at 60fps, it would take much longer than the lifetime of the universe to display every possible combination. (600,000,000,000 images per second is many orders of magnitude shorter).

you can optimize this down by allowing multiple substrings per line (pixels 0-16, pixels 1-17, etc being allowed, similar to entering a passcode in a stateless lock, where 12341 checks the passcode 1234 as well as the passcode 2341) but that barely makes a dent.
#115 - dkedr (11/03/2013) [-]
Yeah, the number of possibilities is massive though
2 ^ (1920*1080*24)=2 ^ 49766400= google doesn even want to tell me the number so I had to split it up

2^(497) = 4.091738e+149
2^(664) = 7.654505e+199
2^(100) =1.2676506e+30
2^(1000) = 1.071509e+301

At this point I don't really care about all the numbers before the e since they won't make a heck of a difference.

So now we just take the 2^(497) * 2^(1000)*2^(100) and add 2^(664) *2^(1000)
2^(497) * 2^(1000)*2^(100) = 5.557803743e+480 and 2^(664) *2^(100) = 9.703237856e+229
This one here ^ isn't really worth thinking about since it's so much smaller than the other one.
So if you could view a million of these pictures a second and decide if they were usefull or not, it'd take you 5.557803743e+474 seconds or
1.7623680058e+467 years
Even if you take it to a billion pictures a second you'd just shave another e+3 off that e+467, so it'll still take longer than anything really.
Now if we take a smaller screen it could be easier, and reduce the number of colours to make it even easier.
So lets take a 32 x 24 pixel black and white screen, as in no grey, no colours, just black and white. That's still 1.5e+231 possibilities. Will still take ~e+215 years to look through.
Even if we reduce the picture size to just an 8 by 8 pixels, it'll still give you 1.8e+19 possibilities, which will take e+3 years to filter through, and that's a thousanish years.
So it is finite, mathematically, but really, it's infinite.
User avatar #109 - weapsycho (11/03/2013) [-]
emma watson beating my nuts with her third boob
User avatar #139 - goll ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
they have a name for this, it's called photoshop.
#138 - orgasmpirate (11/03/2013) [-]
< This screen image, page, and comment are also some combinations.
#76 - icametocomment ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
User avatar #43 - sadisticsalmon (11/02/2013) [-]
Yeh, sure Emma watson beating the **** out of a bear on live TV..... Thats totally the first Emma Watson related footage I'd conjure up if I could do that.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)