[FoRK] trivial vs. nontrival self-rep

Dave Long < dave.long at bluewin.ch > on > Tue Sep 5 14:54:51 PDT 2006

When writing a self-replicating program, usually one isn't so 
interested in degenerate instances such as self-triggering error 
messages or the null program.

But where does one draw the "nontrivial" line otherwise?  One 
possibility is to use a "mendelian" vs. "lamarckian" analogy: will 
minor changes to the code of a self-replicating program result in 
reproduction of the original program, or of the altered program?

For instance, by this definition, the shell script

     cat $0

is trivial, because an alteration such as

     cat $0;

produces the altered program, but the python line*

     _='_=%r;print _%%_';print _%_

is nontrivial, because an alteration such as

     q='_=%r;print _%%_';print q%q

reproduces the original.

-Dave

:: :: ::

* swiped from Sean B. Palmer,
"Shortest Python Quine?", 2002-11-29
http://miscoranda.com/37


More information about the FoRK mailing list