Re: Factitious Style -- Factitious' Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:38:33 September 03 2003, Wednesday
Author: Mike
Subject: Re: Factitious Style
In reply to: Factitious 's message, "Re: Factitious Style" on 13:36:13 September 03 2003, Wednesday

>>When you referred to your Ice Climber skills as being
>>strong, I thought there was something a little strange
>>about it. Then I realized that it was because you
>>always describe things like that with the word
>>"mighty". You know, "my extrapolation skills are
>>mighty", and so forth. Is there any particular reason
>>why you switched it up in the last entry? Or, rather,
>>the one before the most recent two?
>
>You're reading too much into it. My journal entries
>are generated as random sequences of words, so any
>pattern you may perceive is a function of your own
>mind.

Don't you mean pseudo-random? Or are your entries based on readings taken at a quantum level?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Re: Factitious Style -- Factitious, 13:47:42 September 03 2003, Wednesday

>>You're reading too much into it. My journal entries
>>are generated as random sequences of words, so any
>>pattern you may perceive is a function of your own
>>mind.
>
>Don't you mean pseudo-random? Or are your entries
>based on readings taken at a quantum level?

There's no point in giving that sort of deep interpretation to my above post. It was a randomly chosen collection of letters; any meaning, semantic or otherwise, is coincidental.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: Factitious Style -- Albert, 02:56:49 September 06 2003, Saturday

>There's no point in giving that sort of deep
>interpretation to my above post. It was a randomly
>chosen collection of letters; any meaning, semantic or
>otherwise, is coincidental.

I find it hard to believe that they are totally random collections of letters. I have done tests with random collections of characters, with the intent of simulating the classic monkeys and typewriters setup. In several hundred pages of trials, even strings corresponding to four-letter words were a rarity. the chances of having 'random' strings of characters that 'just happen' to correspond to entire paragraphs of sensible English (well, as sensible as you ever get) are astronomically tiny. Especially when based on the entire journal.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Factitious Style -- Factitious, 03:00:30 September 06 2003, Saturday

>>There's no point in giving that sort of deep
>>interpretation to my above post. It was a randomly
>>chosen collection of letters; any meaning, semantic or
>>otherwise, is coincidental.
>
>I find it hard to believe that they are totally random
>collections of letters. I have done tests with random
>collections of characters, with the intent of
>simulating the classic monkeys and typewriters setup.
>In several hundred pages of trials, even strings
>corresponding to four-letter words were a rarity. the
>chances of having 'random' strings of characters that
>'just happen' to correspond to entire paragraphs of
>sensible English (well, as sensible as you ever get)
>are astronomically tiny. Especially when based on the
>entire journal.

I agree that it is a rather impressive coincidence. But then, the human mind is adept at pattern-matching, and picks up on "coincidences" more often than one might expect. You may find this hard to believe, but that's wishful thinking on your part.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Factitious Style -- Maryna, 00:44:08 September 08 2003, Monday

>I agree that it is a rather impressive coincidence.
>But then, the human mind is adept at pattern-matching,
>and picks up on "coincidences" more often than one
>might expect. You may find this hard to believe, but
>that's wishful thinking on your part.

you, sir, are full of shit

ahem.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Factitious Style -- Mike, 14:35:02 September 08 2003, Monday

>>I agree that it is a rather impressive coincidence.
>>But then, the human mind is adept at pattern-matching,
>>and picks up on "coincidences" more often than one
>>might expect. You may find this hard to believe, but
>>that's wishful thinking on your part.
>
>you, sir, are full of shit
>
>ahem.

It depends on how recently he has eaten. Generally, though, it is a safe assumption that Ben is full of shit.

Oh, and THIS is a random collection of letters as well! In fact, I wrote a program that just HAPPENED to bring this webpage up, fill in the boxes, and write this message. Totally by chance. Isn't that wild?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]