[PD] wanna get drunk?

Steffen Leve Poulsen slagmark at worldonline.dk
Sat Aug 4 01:25:05 CEST 2007

Tak for all your lovly response.
I'll settle on [pd_drunk] (thanks Frank) though it seems like maxed out 
since it*s already PD!

kh/Steffen Leve Poulsen


Charles Henry skrev:
> hillarious
> I like that a lot :)
> On 8/4/07, Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk> wrote:
>> I had a few ideas on this Chuck, perhaps you can distil some
>> algorithms out of them,
>> [tipsy bang x y]
>> Increasing but non-monotonic, [tipsy] behaves like a regular counter but
>> occasionally jumps backwards or forwards from one bar to another by x with
>> a probability y
>> [stumble bang x y]
>> [stumble] Increasing but gin and tonic. Behaves like a regular counter but
>> occasionally lurches forwards at an increased rate after passing a bar, by
>> factor x with probability y - sometimes sings in the street
>> [leary slap x y z]
>> Follows the attractor (mimsy) value x staggering around with probability y and
>> leariness z. The leariness factor sets the probability that it is within the
>> vacinity of x attempting to find a saddle point on x's curves - slapping
>> throws it out of the current bar, but it never gets banged.
>> [sozzled bang x y]
>> Spends most of its time on the floor x, but gets up and moves to the next bar with
>> probability y
>> [shitfaced bang x y ]
>> Tries to start fight with x, falls on floor y, performs brownian motion in
>> its pants, vomits. Doesn't move after that.
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:51:24 -0500
>> "Charles Henry" <czhenry at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/3/07, chris clepper <cgclepper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/07, Steffen Leve Poulsen <slagmark at worldonline.dk> wrote:
>>>>> OK what about [walk] ?
>>>> [stagger]
>>>> [stumble]
>>>> [tipsy]
>>>> [blotto]
>>> LOL
>>> I never did care much for the term "drunkard's walk."  It's pretty old
>>> fashioned.  Also, not descriptive enough.  We're talking about Markov
>>> processes or Brownian motion, here.... and there are differences... I
>>> would recommend addressing the technical specs with a concise/accurate
>>> abstraction name, and then wrap it up into a more-user-friendly name,
>>> like [blotto], that can handle the best default values, and is more
>>> memorable than say d_markov_walk or c_brownian....
>>> e.g.
>>> Is it discrete (integer based) or continuous (real/rational)?
>>> maybe there should be distinctions or a parameter to tell the difference?
>>> d_walk  -- discrete random walk
>>> c_walk  -- continuous random walk
>>> walk d
>>> walk c
>>> etc....
>>> Chuck

More information about the Pd-list mailing list