On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:59:30PM +1100, Ross Bencina wrote:
> Clearly I'm in the minority, but the line has to be drawn somewhere
> and I can't think of a better place to draw it -- unless you want
> some watered down definition of "live coding" that pretty much
> admits every procedural activity under the sun from deterministic
> dataflow patching to musical dice games.
I actually would, yes. And I'd go further; I'd argue that musical
games may in fact well be turing-complete. Admittedly a "musical dice
game" that does not actually roll any dice would be a degenerate case
but even that could be dealt with. There is plenty of noise inside of
your CPU and that is far more random than dice are and yet it can
function in a deterministic way.
If you wish to prove this you just need to take any existing Turing
complete system, chop it up into parts, define the behaviour of each
part on a sheet of paper, add side effects in the form of sounds, and
hand the sheets out to musicians calling it a "score". All you need is
a infinite set of infinitely patient musicians.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Sun Jan 13 2013 - 15:20:01 GMT