mirror/ioccc
1
0 Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Format fixes in html files from 2018

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Cody Boone Ferguson committed 2024-10-15 11:52:45 -07:00
1 parent 18268ae452
commit cb5ab11092
21 files changed
+493 -604
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

No files matched your search

2018/ferguson/README.md
+178 -186
View File
@@ -208,16 +208,14 @@ It is an implementation of Richard Dawkins' [Weasel program][] (Wikipedia).
According to Wikipedia in chapter three of his book [The Blind Watchmaker][]
Dawkins wrote:
```
I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey
bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of
Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, *given enough time.* Let us
limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not
the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is
like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter
with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space
bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?
```
> I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey
bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of
Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, *given enough time.* Let us
limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not
the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is
like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter
with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space
bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?
He refers to the [Infinite Monkey Theorem][] (Wikipedia). As he points out the
operative phrase is *given enough time*; but even if it's extremely unlikely
@@ -250,18 +248,16 @@ Here you can find a general explanation of a *[genetic algorithm][]* as well as
brief history. Although the link provides more information (including images to
try and show the way they work) for those interested I will cite the summary:
```
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm based on the
evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics. As such they represent an
intelligent exploitation of a random search used to solve optimization problems.
Although randomised, GAs are by no means random, instead they exploit historical
information to direct the search into the region of better performance within
the search space. The basic techniques of the GAs are designed to simulate
processes in natural systems necessary for evolution, specially those follow the
principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of "survival of the fittest.".
Since in nature, competition among individuals for scanty resources results in
the fittest individuals dominating over the weaker ones.
```
> Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm based on the
evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics. As such they represent an
intelligent exploitation of a random search used to solve optimization problems.
Although randomised, GAs are by no means random, instead they exploit historical
information to direct the search into the region of better performance within
the search space. The basic techniques of the GAs are designed to simulate
processes in natural systems necessary for evolution, specially those follow the
principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of "survival of the fittest.".
Since in nature, competition among individuals for scanty resources results in
the fittest individuals dominating over the weaker ones.
**OBFUSCATION NOTE: Some of the below might help you follow the code more
easily.**
@@ -292,9 +288,8 @@ Note that the generation is checked *before the scoring takes place* by a prefix
increment equality check; when the generation is `SIZE_MAX - 1` the fitness
test loop will not be entered; instead the outer loop will end after printing:
```
Too many attempts, blaming the monkey Eric even if he isn't typing or doesn't exist. Bye.
```
> Too many attempts, blaming the monkey Eric even if he isn't typing or doesn't
exist. Bye.
Why '*Eric*'? Because the judges stated in the [2018 guidelines][] that when
there is a user input error the program should insult the pet fish Eric even if
@@ -304,22 +299,21 @@ final but this is relevant) they give is:
The judges might not have a pet fish named Eric, so might want to state:
```
This entry factors integers between 1 and 2305567963945518424753102147331756070.
Attempting to factor anything else will cause the program to insult your
pet fish Eric, or in the case that you lack such a pet, will insult the
pet that you do not have.
```
> This entry factors integers between 1 and
2305567963945518424753102147331756070\. Attempting to factor anything else will
cause the program to insult your pet fish Eric, or in the case that you lack
such a pet, will insult the pet that you do not have.
After the final message they ask:
BTW: **What is so special about 2305567963945518424753102147331756070**? You tell us!
> BTW: **What is so special about 2305567963945518424753102147331756070**? You
tell us!
The answer is this: **it is the primorial prime of 97:** the product of all
prime numbers less than or equal to N; **and the primorial prime of `N == 97` is
`2305567963945518424753102147331756070`. There is no reference to this number
in my entry but it's nonetheless possible to **change the default target to it
without modifying the source code**; there are two hints in this very
`2305567963945518424753102147331756070`.** But there is no reference to this number
in my entry but it's nonetheless possible to change the default target to it
**without modifying the source code**; there are two hints in this very
paragraph; the first sentence in fact: the answer to the judges' question and
the definition. Can you get the program to search the primorial prime of 97
without passing in specially?
@@ -328,6 +322,7 @@ I was quite proud that when the next contest came the judges removed that
question. Later 2018 and all of 2019 was difficult for me so it was like I won a
second time for the same entry.
### On <del>user</del> monkey errors
If the generation reaches `SIZE_MAX - 1` I consider it a monkey (or if you
@@ -349,7 +344,7 @@ assumption that **the user could in fact be a monkey called Eric** *although it
isn't insolent enough to say the user is a monkey for certain!*
[genetic algorithm]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180308131613/http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html
[2018 guidelines]: ../../2018/guidelines.txt
[2018 guidelines]: ../guidelines.txt
<div id="hints">
@@ -372,11 +367,15 @@ precise the following characters are acceptable; it equates to this in C (note
it includes a literal space `' '` but it doesn't include other
`isspace()` characters) and this is why some of the characters are escaped:
const char keyboard[]=" !\"#$<%:>&'()*+,-./0123456789;=?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\\]^_`{|}~";
``` <!---c-->
const char keyboard[]=" !\"#$<%:>&'()*+,-./0123456789;=?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\\]^_`{|}~";
```
The simpler keyboard looks like:
const char keyboard[]=" !\"&'(),.0123456789;?ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
``` <!---c-->
const char keyboard[]=" !\"&'(),.0123456789;?ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
```
The program makes sure that the target string only has characters the keyboard
can actually produce but there is a certain type of input error that might
@@ -394,7 +393,7 @@ string; some I will document here (the summary being in the man page). You can
join options but there is a caveat with spaces and `-r` option as well as
the target string (see below).
**Enable quiet output:**
#### Enable quiet output:
```
-q
@@ -404,7 +403,7 @@ This means don't print the generation and offspring output; only print (some) of
the options set (this is always done but wouldn't usually be seen due to verbose
output) and the final answer.
**Change the mutation rate to `<rate>`:**
#### Change the mutation rate to `<rate>`:
```
-r<num>
@@ -502,9 +501,9 @@ The target string will be: `-TEST`. This means though that here:
./weasel -q -- -test -r5
```
The string to be searched would actually be `-r5` and the mutation rate
will remain the default because after the `-` option is seen it will no
longer parse additional options: only target strings if anything left on the
The string to be searched would actually be `-r5` and the mutation rate will
remain the default because after the `-` option (that is `--`) is seen it will
no longer parse additional options: only target strings if anything left on the
command line. Because of the joining of arguments this means that the first two
examples of the last set of three above are equivalent i.e. the following two
are equivalent:
@@ -558,6 +557,7 @@ it no longer cares about the `-` for option parsing. In other words options
are only parsed if the first character is `-` and if the parser hasn't seen
the `-` - *in an earlier element of `argv`. This is not a bug!*
<div id="obfuscation">
### Obfuscation
</div>
@@ -608,12 +608,10 @@ So in this case I joined the options in the following order:
Quiet output.
2. `-r101`
Mutation rate 101 (out of range).
3. `-r5`
Mutation rate of 5 but note that during parsing I only print invalid mutation
@@ -622,7 +620,6 @@ being); so while it appears there is a bug, showing mutation rate out of range
three times, this is expected (given the next one, `-r101`). This means here
the typewriter was taken from Eric the monkey.
4. `-r101`
Mutation rate to 101: this too is out of range (this is the second mutation rate
@@ -634,7 +631,6 @@ out of range message). The typewriter returns to Eric.
Set mutation rate to 1. Take that typewriter away!
6. `-r`
Set mutation rate to 0; when there are no valid characters passed to
@@ -645,15 +641,14 @@ mutation rate; if there are any systems where the widths differ this *shouldn't
matter* because of truncation but I do in any case specifically check for `R <
0 || R > 100`. Either way the invalid range returns the typewriter to Eric.
7. `test`
Finally I requested it find the string `test` (will search for `TEST`).
Given that it was a short string it did find the answer relatively quickly, even
in monkey mode.
Given that it was a short string it did find the answer relatively quickly,
even in monkey mode.
Another example:
Another example:
``` <!---sh-->
$ ./weasel -q -r101 test -r5
@@ -664,12 +659,12 @@ Another example:
Generation 109 Offspring 13: TEST
```
In this case I also enabled quiet mode but I didn't join the options; the
`-r101` reports that it's out of range and sets monkey mode. I then specify
the target string and then set a valid mutation rate. This disabled monkey mode
which means that it'll use the genetic algorithm.
In this case I also enabled quiet mode but I didn't join the options; the
`-r101` reports that it's out of range and sets monkey mode. I then specify
the target string and then set a valid mutation rate. This disabled monkey
mode which means that it'll use the genetic algorithm.
One more example of monkey mode:
One more example of monkey mode:
``` <!---sh-->
$ ./weasel -q -mr101 test -r5
@@ -681,18 +676,19 @@ One more example of monkey mode:
Generation 465298 Offspring 10: TEST
```
Here I also requested quiet output and then *explicitly requested that Eric the
monkey types.* After this I set the mutation rate to be 101 which would have
set monkey mode (*in this case only temporarily as I later set it to a valid
number*) but since I have also requested monkey mode that won't matter. Then I
set the string to `test` and then set a valid mutation rate of 5. Now note
that it is actually set to 5 but also note that monkey mode remains active: it
also took a lot longer to come to a conclusion for even four characters. This
example does demonstrate one other thing in a subtle way though.
Here I also requested quiet output and then *explicitly requested that Eric
the monkey types.* After this I set the mutation rate to be 101 which would
have set monkey mode (*in this case only temporarily as I later set it to a
valid number*) but since I have also requested monkey mode that won't
matter. Then I set the string to `test` and then set a valid mutation rate
of 5. Now note that it is actually set to 5 but also note that monkey mode
remains active: it also took a lot longer to come to a conclusion for even
four characters. This example does demonstrate one other thing in a subtle
way though.
When the program prints out each iteration (I'll give an example next) it goes a
lot slower; this makes sense because it's an expensive operation. Here are the
times for the same but without quiet output enabled:
When the program prints out each iteration (I'll give an example next) it
goes a lot slower; this makes sense because printing is an expensive
operation. Here are the times for the same but without quiet output enabled:
```
real 0m17.065s
@@ -700,7 +696,7 @@ times for the same but without quiet output enabled:
sys 0m2.402s
```
Whereas with quiet output:
.. whereas with quiet output:
```
real 0m0.127s
@@ -708,12 +704,12 @@ Whereas with quiet output:
sys 0m0.001s
```
Of course it isn't only down to the printing but the point is it slows it down
significantly. Adding an option to print every X lines would go over the limit
(`iocccsize -i` reports 2052!).
Of course it isn't only down to the printing but the point is it slows it
down significantly. Adding an option to print every X lines would go over
the limit (`iocccsize -i` reports 2052!).
Finally I'll show a default example in normal output (I omit many lines showing
instead **[...]**). Note that the real/user/sys times are from the `time`
8. Finally I'll show a default example in normal output (I omit many lines showing
instead `[...]`). Note that the real/user/sys times are from the `time`
bash shell built-in utility: that isn't output from my entry.
```
@@ -740,13 +736,14 @@ bash shell built-in utility: that isn't output from my entry.
sys 0m0.001s
```
Keep in mind the way I display the generations and the fact that generation 0
has no parents; it is generation 1 that starts working towards the goal. You'll
see also **(mutation)** at the end of the line at this point (if you enable
monkey mode you'll find that it shows something else). The lines that only have
back-quote ("\`") are separators: you won't see this between generation 0 and 1 but you will
between future generations - as well as the final answer (if the answer is in
generation 0 you won't see the ``).
see also `(mutation)` at the end of the line at this point (if you enable monkey
mode you'll find that it shows something else). The lines that only have
back-quote (`` "\`" ``) are separators: you won't see this between generation 0
and 1 but you will between future generations - as well as the final answer (if
the answer is in generation 0 you won't see the `` ` ``).
<div id="test">
One final thing to consider is that **the program doesn't directly read from a
@@ -934,23 +931,22 @@ Skip to [How to build](#build).
On the subject of beauty: the judges stated in the guidelines the following:
```
We want to get away from source that is simply **a compact blob of
octets.** Really try to be more creative than **blob coding.** *HINT!*
```
> We want to get away from source that is simply **a compact blob of octets.**
Really try to be more creative than **blob coding.** *HINT!*
And if you'll notice that although it *might look like a compact blob of octets*
at first glance if you look throughout the file you'll see two statements to
set your thinking straight:
(although not really: a blob is by definition roundish) at first glance if you
look throughout the file you'll see two statements to set your thinking
straight:
**NO BLOB CODING**
**THIS IS NOT A COMPACT BLOB OF OCTETS**
> **NO BLOB CODING**
>
> **THIS IS NOT A COMPACT BLOB OF OCTETS**
So you see even if your eyes are trying to deceive you they're quite wrong. Yes
some of it might look like a blob but this is clearly false; *as all good
programmers know if something is potentially confusing or misleading it should
be made clear in the comments! :)*
some of it might look like a blob (for certain definitions of 'blob' :) ) but
this is clearly false; *as all good programmers know if something is potentially
confusing or misleading it should be made clear in the comments! :)*
<div id="build">
## **5. How to build**
@@ -1157,7 +1153,8 @@ Skip to [Final thoughts](#thoughts).
I have included a RPM spec file for those with a Red Hat based Linux
distribution; see [rpm.html](rpm.html) for details (including why I implemented
this) if for some (strange or maybe even mad) reason you're interested.
this) if for some (strange or maybe even mad) reason you're interested, which
basically means nobody but me.
[rpm.html]: rpm.html
@@ -1180,50 +1177,48 @@ two things I think are rather amusing (in order of least to most):
Dennis Ritchie's Anti-Foreword:
</div>
```
Anti-Foreword
By Dennis Ritchie
From: dmr@plan9.research.att.com
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:38:07 EST
Subject: anti-foreword
To the contributers to this book:
I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do write you
off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of memories. The systems you
remember so fondly (TOPS-20, ITS, Multics, Lisp Machine, Cedar/Mesa, the Dorado)
are not just out to pasture, they are fertilizing it from below.
Your judgments are not keen, they are intoxicated by metaphor. In the Preface
you suffer first from heat, lice, and malnourishment, then become prisoners in
a Gulag. In Chapter 1 you are in turn infected by a virus, racked by drug
addiction, and addled by puffiness of the genome.
Yet your prison without coherent design continues to imprison you. How can
this be, if it has no strong places? The rational prisoner exploits the weak
places, creates order from chaos: instead, collectives like the FSF vindicate
their jailers by building cells almost compatible with the existing ones, albeit
with more features. The journalist with three undergraduate degrees from MIT,
the researcher at Microsoft, and the senior scientist at Apple might volunteer a
few words about the regulations of the prisons to which they have been
transferred.
Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same
thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want
something different, but can't seem to get people to use it; sometimes one
wonders why you just don't shut up and tell people to buy a PC with Windows or a
Mac. No Gulag or lice, just a future whose intellectual tone and interaction
style is set by Sonic the Hedgehog. You claim to seek progress, but you succeed
mainly in whining.
Here is my metaphor: your book is a pudding stuffed with apposite
observations, many well-conceived. Like excrement, it contains enough undigested
nuggets of nutrition to sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it
reeks too much of contempt and of envy.
Bon appetit!
```
> Anti-Foreword
>
> By Dennis Ritchie
> From: dmr@plan9.research.att.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:38:07 EST
> Subject: anti-foreword
>
> To the contributers to this book:
>
> I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do write you
> off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of memories. The systems you
> remember so fondly (TOPS-20, ITS, Multics, Lisp Machine, Cedar/Mesa, the Dorado)
> are not just out to pasture, they are fertilizing it from below.
>
> Your judgments are not keen, they are intoxicated by metaphor. In the Preface
> you suffer first from heat, lice, and malnourishment, then become prisoners in
> a Gulag. In Chapter 1 you are in turn infected by a virus, racked by drug
> addiction, and addled by puffiness of the genome.
>
> Yet your prison without coherent design continues to imprison you. How can
> this be, if it has no strong places? The rational prisoner exploits the weak
> places, creates order from chaos: instead, collectives like the FSF vindicate
> their jailers by building cells almost compatible with the existing ones, albeit
> with more features. The journalist with three undergraduate degrees from MIT,
> the researcher at Microsoft, and the senior scientist at Apple might volunteer a
> few words about the regulations of the prisons to which they have been
> transferred.
>
> Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same
> thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want
> something different, but can't seem to get people to use it; sometimes one
> wonders why you just don't shut up and tell people to buy a PC with Windows or a
> Mac. No Gulag or lice, just a future whose intellectual tone and interaction
> style is set by Sonic the Hedgehog. You claim to seek progress, but you succeed
> mainly in whining.
>
> Here is my metaphor: your book is a pudding stuffed with apposite
> observations, many well-conceived. Like excrement, it contains enough undigested
> nuggets of nutrition to sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it
> reeks too much of contempt and of envy.
>
> Bon appetit!
Yes he misspelt *'contributors'*! But then again we're talking about obfuscation
and since it doesn't break his message it's not broken - it's just obfuscated
@@ -1234,56 +1229,51 @@ contest is about? :)
Ken Thompson's ending:
</div>
```
Creators Admit C, Unix Were Hoax
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating system and
C programming language created by them is an elaborate April Fools prank kept
alive for more than 20 years. Speaking at the recent UnixWorld Software
Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:
"In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the GE/AT&T Multics
project. Brian and I had just started working with an early release of Pascal
from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs in Switzerland, and we were impressed
with its elegant simplicity and power. Dennis had just finished reading Bored of
the Rings, a hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien Lord of the
Rings trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics environment
and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating environment. We
looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as complex and cryptic as
possible to maximize casual users' frustration levels, calling it Unix as a
parody of Multics, as well as other more risque allusions.
"Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal, called "A."
When we found others were actually trying to programs with A, we quickly added
additional cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL, and finally C. We stopped
when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:
```
``` <!---c-->
for(;P("\n"),R=;P("|"))for(e=C;e=P("_"+(*u++/
8)%2))P("|"+(*u/4)%2);
```
```
"To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that allowed
such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually thought of selling
this to the Soviets to set their computer science progress back 20 or more
years. Imagine our surprise when AT&T and other U.S. corporations actually began
trying to use Unix and C! It has taken them 20 years to develop enough
expertise to generate even marginally useful applications using this 1960s
technological parody, but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common
sense) of the general Unix and C programmer.
"In any event, Brian, Dennis, and I have been working exclusively in Lisp on
the Apple Macintosh for the past few years and feel really guilty about the
chaos, confusion, and truly bad programming that has resulted from our silly
prank so long ago."
```
Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft,
> Creators Admit C, Unix Were Hoax
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating system and
C programming language created by them is an elaborate April Fools prank kept
alive for more than 20 years. Speaking at the recent UnixWorld Software
Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:
>
> "In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the GE/AT&T Multics
project. Brian and I had just started working with an early release of Pascal
from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs in Switzerland, and we were impressed
with its elegant simplicity and power. Dennis had just finished reading Bored of
the Rings, a hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien Lord of the
Rings trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics environment
and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating environment. We
looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as complex and cryptic as
possible to maximize casual users' frustration levels, calling it Unix as a
parody of Multics, as well as other more risque allusions.
>
> "Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal, called
"A." When we found others were actually trying to programs with A, we quickly
added additional cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL, and finally C. We
stopped when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:
>
> `for(;P("\n"),R=;P("|"))for(e=C;e=P("_"+(*u++/`<br>
> `8)%2))P("|"+(*u/4)%2);`
>
>
> "To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that allowed
such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually thought of selling
this to the Soviets to set their computer science progress back 20 or more
years. Imagine our surprise when AT&T and other U.S. corporations actually began
trying to use Unix and C! It has taken them 20 years to develop enough
expertise to generate even marginally useful applications using this 1960s
technological parody, but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common
sense) of the general Unix and C programmer.
>
> "In any event, Brian, Dennis, and I have been working exclusively in Lisp
on the Apple Macintosh for the past few years and feel really guilty about the
chaos, confusion, and truly bad programming that has resulted from our silly
prank so long ago."
>
> Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft,
Hewlett-Packard, GTE, NCR, and DEC have refused comment at this time. Borland
International, a leading vendor of Pascal and C tools, including the popular
Turbo Pascal, Turbo C, and Turbo C++, stated they had suspected this for a
@@ -1295,13 +1285,15 @@ cryptic statement, Professor Wirth of the ETH Institute and father of the
Pascal, Modula 2, and Oberon structured languages, merely stated that P. T.
Barnum was correct.
<hr>
So is it a hoax about a non-hoax, a non-hoax about a hoax, a non-hoax about a
non-hoax or is it a hoax about a hoax ? :) And if it's any of those what does it
mean about Unix and C?** And if a hoax is involved *what is the hoax?* The pedant
and Tolkienist that I am has to state that **Tolkien didn't consider The Lord of
the Rings a trilogy** *(and he made that very clear)* but that doesn't take away
from the humour by any stretch (*if anyone wants me to elaborate or debate the
matter do send me an email - I love Tolkien's legendarium and having another
matter do send me an email - I love Tolkien's Legendarium and having another
person to talk about it with is more than welcome!*). Ken suggested that there
is a lack of common sense but since he was part of its creation I don't think
it's a bad thing; **on the contrary it makes all of us C programmers even more