Re: Monkey texts

[Mark Perakh <perakh@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene, thanks for clarification.  The type of "quasi-monkey" text you
described is something I did not encounter and I would be curious to see one
as well as to see results of an LSC test of such a text. It may show some
unexpected features, maybe sharpening the LSC tool to be applied to VMs and
thus get additonal info in regard to it being meaningful.    Cheers, Mark

Rene wrote:

> Frogguy responded:
>
> > Non, m'sieur, pas correct. Just press the right arrow key,
> > and the text you see on the screen gets sent to a file
> > MONKEY.SEZ (the text so saved is highlighted in reverse video
> > on the screen). ...
>
> Oops. Can you say: RTFM?
> Thanks!
>
> > I really ought to rewrite Monkey from scratch, in Euphoria
> > (terrific language, Euphoria, no 64K limit, automatic
> > garbage collection, no dangling pointers...)
>
> I can't resist. Try fortran. No limit, no garbage creation in
> the first place, and no pointers either, dangling or otherwise.
>
> Mark: what I am after is a text typed by a somewhat 'intelligent'
> monkey. This will not just generate text based on a single-
> character frequency table, but the probility of each character depends
> on the previous 1, 2 or more characters. These would be 2nd or 3rd order
> monkeys respectively. Especially a 3rd order monkey process generates
> garbage of which the underlying language is very very clear, even
> though the resulting text is nonsensical. (There are nice examples
> in a 1970s book by W. R. Bennett, who also looked at the Voynich MS - see
> bibliography at Jim Reeds' web site).
>
> I expect that such monkey texts will exhibit LSC sums with the
> same profile as meaningful texts (but it will be interesting to see
> which order it takes to do so). If not, well, then the LSC sums really
> seem to quantify a much more 'intangible' form of meaning...
>
> Note: I am taking for granted that the Voynich MS was *not* created as
> a hoax by someone employing a similar technique as in Jacques' monkey
> program. At least not before the current century.
>
> Cheers, Rene