[dead]
I found the best anagram in English (2017)
221–230 of 236 posts
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you're asking about the technique, or the math, or the comparison with sorting, so here's a long answer of all of them - start like the secret codes from childhood by giving numbers to letters so A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, etc. Then go through a word and find the values for each letter and multiply them together, e.g. "tab" is 20 x 1 x 2 = 40 and hopefully an anagram that just rearranges the letters gets the sam…
Is it actually faster? You could just do counting sort if the big-O is important, but I'm a bit suspicious about that big-O anyway. A model where multiplying arbitrarily big numbers is constant time is a bit unrealistic, kind of feels like it's getting off the hook for a log factor for free. It's also all such small values that I'm not sure the big-O matters either, I'm not confident which would win without just tryi…
Huh, good call; it was 2 years ago that I did it, and I've retried to test it; the values overflow an Int64 or a Uint64 for words like "abortiveness" (== 38199980262261136506). Trying in PowerShell that overflowed to a double and then errored assigning it to an Int64.
Looking what was happening, I find C# doesn't throw overflow exceptions by default and instead wraps around. That takes 0.05 seconds for all 172k words compared to 0.1 seconds for sorting all words so it ran a lot faster, yes, but it was wrong and may have clashed words. Same with Rust and overflows, it seems. Turning it to System.Numerics.BigInteger in C# makes it take about the same time 0.1s for both. In Python which handles any size integers it takes a lot more time, 0.14 seconds for sorting, 0.4 seconds for products.
That means my embedded arrays of products are all overflowed as well. What a good example for arguing that programs should be correct first, and fast second. (I remember being suspicious of overflows, but I don't remember what I tried to conclude that all the word results would fit into int64, but it must have been bad).
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#223While I personally agree with the end result - cinematographer megachiropteran possibly being the best anagram, its worth exploring other scoring mechanisms I suppose - some kind of alliteration / cadence score to quantify how the words roll in succession. Maybe throw in semantic distance as well using clip embeddings probably to quantify the surprise element (or closeness for that matter). Gonna play around with thi…
Sounds like fun -- here's a try at alliteration scoring for a start: https://github.com/darius/alliterate
Thanks for the share, will look into it. Cheers
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#224My personal favourite is that an anagram of Banach-Tarski is Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
Guess what the B in "Benoit B. Mandelbrot" stands for?
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will counter that with.. timesaving negativism.
That one has real meaning too. Being naturally inclined to mentally run through all the worst case scenarios for everything has definitely saved me time over the years.
Over the long run, minimizing the maximally worst cases works.
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#226Some of my favorite pairs from the big list: misrelation / orientalism; superintended / unpredestined; incorporate / procreation (don't mind if i do!); predators / teardrops (a cause and effect); counteridea / reeducation (a bit synonymous); streamlined / derailments (quite opposite!); truculent / unclutter; colonialist / oscillation; renavigate / vegetarian; persistent / prettiness; paternoster / penetrators (hmm);…
in French we have chien (dog) / niche (doghouse)
Almost verlan!
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clint Eastwood = Old West Action is still my favorite serendiptious anagram. I also like the mathematically correct ELEVEN PLUS TWO = TWELVE PLUS ONE especially because it's also an numeric anagram 11 + 2 = 12 + 1
Things like that explain how some people get obsessed with numerology. Except, I find the anagrams like you and the previous commenter mentioned to be more impressive than anything numerologists produce. Some of those are almost creepy in how they make so much sense.
We're pattern matching machines, if you throw enough randomness at us we will find patterns anyway.
Probably because looking at evolution it's more helpful to see a predator that isn't there, than to miss a predator that is there. It intuitively makes sense that we would tilt towards false positives over false negatives in our perception. Since one has a higher cost attached than the other.
Which is why I find some of the discussion arround whether GPTs are intelligent interesting. I see the argument quite often that they merely match patterns and combine things. Which to me seems very much akin to us. They lack the ability to interact with the world and there is no feedback loop as of now, but it seems to me that there is something very human to the AI we programmed.
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you're asking about the technique, or the math, or the comparison with sorting, so here's a long answer of all of them - start like the secret codes from childhood by giving numbers to letters so A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, etc. Then go through a word and find the values for each letter and multiply them together, e.g. "tab" is 20 x 1 x 2 = 40 and hopefully an anagram that just rearranges the letters gets the sam…
Is it actually faster? You could just do counting sort if the big-O is important, but I'm a bit suspicious about that big-O anyway. A model where multiplying arbitrarily big numbers is constant time is a bit unrealistic, kind of feels like it's getting off the hook for a log factor for free. It's also all such small values that I'm not sure the big-O matters either, I'm not confident which would win without just tryi…
Too late to edit my earlier reply, but I remembered what happened - for my newspaper puzzle, only 9 letter words are possible answers, and all 9 letter word products fit in an int64. Then in C# it is faster, casual runs seem to knock 20-25% off the runtime (~0.035 seconds vs ~0.045 seconds), but in PowerShell it is slower.
(I'm curious,if it would be possible to shuffle the primes around to bring all words in my full wordlist down to UInt64; the highest is 2810298024552111657086849344270208275 - microspectrophotometries which is some quadrillion times too big. Rearranging the by letter frequency in the wordlist brings it down to 24474928756352445162715195352080 - electroencephalographically which is still a trillion times too big, so I doubt it).
Re: I found the best anagram in English (2017)
#229That was pretty good for a one-word anagram. Back in the 1990s I wrote a program that generated anagrams for longer phrases and I was surprised to find these prescient ones: Saddam Hussein = He damns Saudis Charles Manson = Slasher con man David Letterman = Dead mitral vent Mary Jo Kopechne = My joke chaperon * Benito Mussolini = So, I bout Leninism Lee Harvey Oswald = Oe, why ever Dallas? * * "Chaperon" is a valid a…
Yeah but chaperon would be masculine and chaperone feminine.
Ted Kennedy, her "chaperon," was male, so it works perfectly. Although I don't think the difference between the spellings is a gender thing, but rather a British/American thing.