Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you put these sentences in the most likely time-sequence in which they were written? You can assume that the author utilized standard editing methods and processes to improve the sentence to it’s final form.
Of course, all of the earlier forms also communicated some meaning, but not in it’s most readable, best-understood form; not it's most efficient version.
It's not that hard; you'll get the jist of it in a few minutes, tops, and the rest is just, well, logical.
1. The fx jumped ovr the slow dog
2 The quick fx jumppd over the slow dog
3. The quick fox jumppd over the slow dog
4. Th fx jumpd ovr the slow doo
5. The quick brown fox jumpdd over the dog
6. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
7. The quick fox jumped over the slw dogg
8. The fox jumpd ovr the slow doa
Remember to consider the changes in individual words within the sentence.
I'll post the answer after a few correct posts. Just list the correct number sequence:
"# 3, then #6, then #, etc."
(PS: you might want to copy (command C) these sentences, then paste them (command V) into WORD, and then re-organize them there by "Drag & Drop". Quick and easy!)
4. Th fx jumpd ovr the slow doo
8. The fox jumpd ovr the slow doa
1. The fx jumped ovr the slow dog
7. The quick fox jumped over the slw dogg
2. The quick fx jumppd over the slow dog
5. The quick brown fox jumpdd over the dog
6. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
Can you put these sentences in the most likely time-sequence in which they were written? You can assume that the author utilized standard editing methods and processes to improve the sentence to it’s final form.
Of course, all of the earlier forms also communicated some meaning, but not in it’s most readable, best-understood form; not it's most efficient version.
It's not that hard; you'll get the jist of it in a few minutes, tops, and the rest is just, well, logical.
1. The fx jumped ovr the slow dog
2 The quick fx jumppd over the slow dog
3. The quick fox jumppd over the slow dog
4. Th fx jumpd ovr the slow doo
5. The quick brown fox jumpdd over the dog
6. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
7. The quick fox jumped over the slw dogg
8. The fox jumpd ovr the slow doa
Remember to consider the changes in individual words within the sentence.
I'll post the answer after a few correct posts. Just list the correct number sequence:
"# 3, then #6, then #, etc."
(PS: you might want to copy (command C) these sentences, then paste them (command V) into WORD, and then re-organize them there by "Drag & Drop". Quick and easy!)
#6 is the only readable sentance. All the rest are garbage and useless and mean nothing. One does not flow to the next because no person would edit garbage this way. It requires an intelligent mind to write an intelligent line of text, with all of its syntax, gramar and socially known uses of the words.
No amont of monkey typing for millions of years will ever produce reasonable text. It is not possible or statistically reasonable. Just try to get a monkey to the typerwriter in the first place is a chore. Seems he just wants to be a monkey in a tree and not a journalist.
I'm going to go with the "Intelligent Design" Theory...
1. Train yourself to block out any information that could possibly negate your stance even if there is a plethora of scientific evidence backed by mountains of rigorous scientific studies and empirically-reviewed papers proving otherwise.
2. Find something cute that looks complex.
3. Use that as a citation of evidence that one has no imagination and cannot think beyond the boundaries of doctrine-laden assertions supported by religious excrement.
4. Continually claim that although we might find statements such as "The quick fx jumppd over the slow dog" or "Th fx jumpd ovr the slow doo" in the fossil record precisely where we predict them to be; they are not transitions to the 'final product' but merely things leftover from Noah's flood where he and the boys were etching sentences into the walls of the Ark.
5. Publish your findings to places that do not empirically review any of their work and fool a bunch of people across the poorly educated USA to donate money, time and effort to your cause because you have it planted in their mind that evolution negates their faith.
6. Repeat the process until you have attempted on every level to infect the innocent minds of children in school systems across the country with a potentially intellectually fatal mind virus that allows them to adopt the principles of steps One through Six.
#6 is the only readable sentance. All the rest are garbage and useless and mean nothing.
Seriously? When you read any sentences but #6, you have no idea what thy mean? Man, you mudt have lots of troulbe understanding anytthing in this forum...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
One does not flow to the next because no person would edit garbage this way.
Well that's how I do it anyway. Then again, maybe I'm not a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
It requires an intelligent mind to write an intelligent line of text, with all of its syntax, gramar and socially known uses of the words.
That I agree with. A better metaphor (because we all know it's a metaphor ) would be spoken language, since even a dumb animal can utter meaningful grunts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
No amont of monkey typing for millions of years will ever produce reasonable text. It is not possible or statistically reasonable.
Strictly speaking, that's not true. If you take about 500 monkeys, at least one of them will probably write a meaningful three-letter word on his first try. And with [Graham's number] monkeys, you should obtain the complete work of Shakespear in a day or two (depending on monkeys' typing speed).
#6 is the only readable sentance. All the rest are garbage and useless and mean nothing. One does not flow to the next because no person would edit garbage this way. It requires an intelligent mind to write an intelligent line of text, with all of its syntax, gramar and socially known uses of the words.
No amont of monkey typing for millions of years will ever produce reasonable text. It is not possible or statistically reasonable. Just try to get a monkey to the typerwriter in the first place is a chore. Seems he just wants to be a monkey in a tree and not a journalist.
Ahhh ... a predictable answer frrom the intellectually defensive, those who desprately try to figure out the wherefores and the whys..
They are afraid of being caught in some clever bit of trickery.....
I never said each sentence was complete, or gramatically dorrect, but each one can, in fact, be understood even with it's differences. You'll get my point in my next post. Some of the sentences do show a reversal of a previous "improvement" (going from fx to fox and then, oddly, back to fox. Why?)
How did you decide, Reverend? You're essentially right, though I suppose we could possibly interchange your second and third choices; that would be a quiet little debate, but essentially you figured it out.
Ditto for Roxolan. NIKK perhaps couldn't, or didn't want to, partake in any discussion that might, just might, show him wrong in some of his thinking. Sad for him, I'd say.
Have a good night!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) would be spoken language, since even a dumb animal can utter meaningful grunts.
