Randomness
From Maze
(Difference between revisions)
(→I. What is Randomness?) | (→III. The Emergence of Randomness in Computing) | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
Knuth gamely admits that his own attempts to generate random numbers through software algorithms—using what he hoped to be a “’super random’ number generator”--failed, though it’s worth noting that he wanted his machine language program “to be so complicated that a man reading a listing of it without explanatory comments would not know what the program was doing” (Knuth 5). It does not take a leap of imagination to see in Knuth’s desire for obscure code an early version of the same kind of mystery residing in 10 PRINT. | Knuth gamely admits that his own attempts to generate random numbers through software algorithms—using what he hoped to be a “’super random’ number generator”--failed, though it’s worth noting that he wanted his machine language program “to be so complicated that a man reading a listing of it without explanatory comments would not know what the program was doing” (Knuth 5). It does not take a leap of imagination to see in Knuth’s desire for obscure code an early version of the same kind of mystery residing in 10 PRINT. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To those interested in randomness and expressive culture, perhaps the most intriguing element of Knuth’s magisterial discussion of random number appears in a footnote. Knuth recalls a CBS television documentary in 1960 called “The Thinking Machine” which featured “two Western-style playlets” written by a computer (Knuth, 1969, 158-160). In fact, three playlets were acted out on national television that day in October, 1960, generated by a TX-0 computer housed at MIT’s Electronics Systems Laboratory. As journalist John Pfeiffer noted in a book released two years after the documentary, SAGA II, the script-writing program behind the mini-Westerns, took programmers Douglas Ross and Harrison Morse two months and fifty-five hundred instructions to develop (Pfeiffer, 1962, 130-138). The key to SAGA II were its thirty “switches,” which made “various alternative or branching paths” possible (136). "Among other things,” Pfeiffer observed, “the robber may go to the window and look out and then go to the table, or he may go to the table directly. You cannot tell in advance which one of these alternatives the program will select, because it does the equivalent of rolling a pair of dice” (136). | ||
===IV. The Emergence of Computational Randomness in Aesthetic Design=== | ===IV. The Emergence of Computational Randomness in Aesthetic Design=== | ||
