The 80 characters of this poem versus the 52 playing cards and the
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releasePeople & organizations named in this document
Being named here is not an accusation of wrongdoing.
Document text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
Knowledge 135
The 80 characters of this poem versus the 52 playing cards and the
greater choice offered by 26 letters increases the problem geometrically.
Taken together the probability of accidentally getting this poem is vastly
less than a perfect hand of bridge, 1 in 10® against the perfect bridge
hand of 1 in 10”. That’s the difference between the number of atoms
in the known universe and the number of atoms in a jug of water!
Numbers get big very quickly when we are looking at the permutation
of information. And there is another problem with our bridge analogy.
All the bridge players in the world are part of the machine finding the
perfect hand. When a human sees a perfect bridge hand they are amazed.
It is an event that usually hits the local newspapers and a couple of years
ago one reached the national papers in Britain. Each bridge player looks
at every hand, they play so there is a huge amount of processing going on
during every bridge game. To replicate this for our poem, we would need
millions of poetry classes spending hours each evening reading through
computer printouts of gibberish.
I should also add that sightings of perfect bridge hands are almost
certainly hoaxes. The probability of it happening even once would
require everyone on Earth to play bridge continuously for a thousand
years. It is reported somewhere in the world about two or three times a
year. If we are charitable, we might assume people failed to shuffle the
deck properly but I suspect some mischief is going on! The numbers
don't stack up...
You might think the problem is one of improving the efficiency of
the filter so humans would only have to examine a smaller number of
possibilities. Surely I could improve things by writing a simple program
to ban all non-English characters, words and poor grammar; things that
don't pass the Microsoft Word grammar checker. This would generate a
more manageable number of potential poems.
Lewis Carroll shows this does not work; my idea to use a grammar
and spelling checker to filter out gibberish just eliminated Jabberwocky,
one of the most famous verses in the English language. Take a look at
what Microsoft Word thinks of it.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015825
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents