RE: RE: RE: Genetic Programming or breeding Perls

Thou liest, thou jesting monkey, thou - The Tempest :-)

As tilly kindly pointed out, only some primates are monkeys, and humans are not amongst these.

Some people might still say that, "a monkey did in fact write all Shakespearean novels". Predicating a quality (written by a monkey) to a non-existent object (a Shakespearean novel) is logically problematic. And these problems are very interesting, though I'm sorry to say that I no longer remember them well enough to speak knowledgeably about them.

In any case, it doesn't matter. Let's say a monkey did write all Shakespearean novels (in which case so did each of the squirrels in my yard... and indeed, they wrote themselves, too. The novels that is, not the squirrels). Still, I said a monkey would never reproduce a single Shakespeare novel, and that holds true.

It interests me, however, that in the same post you claim both to be a monkey and to be picking nits... at least you seem well-groomed. ;-)

Now, God help thee, poor monkey! - Macbeth

Comment on RE: RE: RE: Genetic Programming or breeding Perls

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
No perl here (RE: Genetic Programming or breeding Perls) by tye (Sage) on Oct 06, 2000 at 19:39 UTC
Yes, you can claim anything about the individual members of the empty set and you are always correct (saying "there are 3 members of the empty set" doesn't count because you are talking about the collected members, not the individual members). Saying "All X are Y" is the same as "No X are not Y" or "there are no X that are not Y" which is always true if there are no X, period. But I think that "monkey" is common English usage for "primate". "Monkey" has a more precise meaning in biology, a fact that I completely ignore unless I'm dealing with on-duty biologists. (: - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")	[reply]
RE: RE: RE: RE: Genetic Programming or breeding Perls by myocom (Deacon) on Oct 07, 2000 at 03:45 UTC
Did Shakespeare actually write novels, though? That's the real question here, if you ask me. And is a Shakespearean novel different from a novel written by Shakespeare? Arguably, "Shakespearean" would mean "written at the time of Shakespeare" or "written in the style of Shakespeare", either of which would mean that Shakespeare's own novels (if, in fact, he wrote any, which I suspect he didn't) would, by definition, be Shakespearean. Whew!	[reply]
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Genetic Programming or breeding Perls by Petruchio (Vicar) on Oct 07, 2000 at 04:53 UTC
myocom: "Did Shakespeare actually write novels, though?" Heck, some people aren't even convinced he wrote plays. There's no evidence to suggest that Shakespeare ever wrote a novel. This does not mean it's impossible that he did, but I would say it means that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he didn't. Which is why, "I think I can pretty safely say that no number of monkeys, under any circumstances, will ever reproduce a single Shakespeare novel... " myocom: "And is a Shakespearean novel different from a novel written by Shakespeare?" Oooh, good one! But again, I return to my original statement... a "Shakespeare novel" would pretty certainly be a novel written by Shakespeare. Okay, okay... it could be a novel written about Shakespeare. But if you play it that way, I'm going to have to get serious about definitions too. We'll need neccesary and sufficient conditions for novelhood, for monkeyhood, for typewriterhood... I can squrim with the best of 'em... you're not taking me without a fight! ;-) Oh... I suppose we should actually associate this with Perl somehow... um, use strict!	[reply]


Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
	PerlMonks