Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian
From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.ai
Subject: Re: Hofstadter on computer music
Message-ID: <610@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 11:18:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: digi-g.610
Posted: Tue May 21 11:18:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 02:13:58 EDT
References: <582@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> <195@u1100s.UUCP> <14174@watmath.UUCP> <5327@ucla-cs.ARPA> <239@sdcc13.UUCP>
Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian)
Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath net.books:1848 net.ai:2787
Summary: 

>I didn't mean to imply that the [music generating] program would be totally
>random, but there would have to be a tiny bit somewhere, else the input would
>completely determine the output.  (Unless there is a new concept around)
>
>Darin Johnson

Just being deterministic doesn't mean the output would be predictable.
Humans might be deterministic (see net.philosophy).  Since music quality
is a matter of opinion, I won't try to predict if a computer can produce
"good" music.  Suffice to say it will be better than Michael Jackson.

Merlyn Leroy