Depth of software as the ability to solve unplanned tasks

A well-known fact: if a product can be used for other than its intended purpose, then this indicates internal harmony, depth and quality of such a product. From this point of view, the ax is more harmonious than a hammer, because with an ax you can perfectly hammer in nails and even small piles, but with a hammer you can only act strictly according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

I recently discovered breathtaking depths and the highest flight of humanitarian thought in the simplest program on my Mac, Systran. This is not even a program, it is a widget in which there are two windows for entering text and one magic button. The manufacturer recommends the following procedure for working with the program: type text in the upper window (for example, in English), then after a couple of seconds a translation will appear in the lower window (for example, into Russian).

Like any educated person, I ignored the electronic translator, but once, in moments of idleness, it occurred to me to type in the upper window:

to be or not to be
')
Naturally, in the lower window caught fire:

to be or not to be

That's right, I thought, and from nothing to do I pressed a single button in the program, completely unaware of what exciting philological discovery it would lead. After clicking on the button, the Russian translation jumped to the top, and in the lower window, of course, we got a translation into English:

it was or did not be

Now do not stop reading, I am not a sucker who laughs at the inaccuracies of the reverse translation. We continue to press the button and translate in turn into Russian - English eternal phrase from Shakespeare:

it was or was not
it was or did not be
it was or was not
...

Aha Looped in! The translator program led the poetic text to a clumsy but stable presentation that is understandable in both languages ​​and is symmetrically translated to and fro.

An interesting effect. Let's try another quote:

Alas, poor yorick
Alas, bad yorick
Alas, bad yorick
Alas, bad yorick
Alas, bad yorick
Alas, bad yorick

All we see that literally fixated on the third step. Does this mean that translators always loop texts in this way? Let's try a line from the kick of our Floyd:

mother love you
mother do you think they love the sun
mother you dumayete they love the sun
Mother you dumayete they love you sun
bud'te mother you love the sun
bud'te mother you dumayete they you love the sun
bud'te by mat'yu you dumayete they you lyubyat the sun
bud'te mat'yu you dumayete they lyubyat you sun

What? The process does not converge, at each iteration producing an increasingly miserable chaotic sequence. If we were talking about the evolution of a living organism, we would see the abomination of degeneration and the transformation of God's creation into a chimera. Here is a thought! Perhaps the original line is no divine creation, no poetry, but a defective development? And does the translator program reveal this internal defect hidden from the fans? We urgently check this hypothesis - Pushkin here!

my uncle of the most honest rules
my uncle of the most honest rules
my uncle of the most honest rules
my uncle of the most honest rules
my uncle of the most honest rules
my uncle of the most honest rules

Well, who would doubt. Great poetry differs from grafomanstvo in that it loops in the electronic translator at the 3-4 step. Checking the hypothesis - forgive, Kutikov:

here's a new twist
here is the new turning
here is a new turn
here new turned
here turned new
the here turned new
here turned new
here turned by the new

And so on, and to infinity, chaos and abomination, the process does not converge. Criterion however! Let's try on a more complex text. In Google we find Shakespeare's quotations and enter the immeasurable phrase:

Play music
If the music was love food, then play on.
If play
If the notes were love food, then play further
If play
If the notes were food of love, then play further.
It plays the future
If the notes were food of love, then the future plays
If you played the music
If the notes were food of love, the future plays after that.
Food play after this
If byla notes are food of love, future play after that
Food
If notes byla of love food, the future game after that
Notes for food, future of game after this
If byla notices the food of love, then the future it played after that.
If byla notes, it was played after this
If byla notices the food of love, then the future it played after that.
If byla notes, it was played after this

It took 15 cycles before the program entered a stable version, but nevertheless Shakespeare did not disappoint. True, the program failed: not knowing the word “was” is a shame for the translator.

Finally, let's test on a giant line, more precisely already a stanza from Pushkin:
under blue skies magnificent carpets glistening in the sun the snow lies
by splendid carpets shining on the sun
gorgeous rugs shining in the sun the snow lies under blue skies
splendid carpets
magnificent carpets lighting up on the snow of the sun it lies under blue skies
it falls under the blue skies
magnificent carpets lighting up on the snow of the sun it lies under blue skies
it splendid carpets illuminating
magnificent carpets lighting up on the snow of the sun it is it lies under blue skies
splendid carpets lighting up
magnificent carpets lighting up up on the snow of the sun it is it it lies under blue skies
splendid carpets illuminating upward
splendid carpets lighting up up on the snow of the sun it is it it it it lies under blue skies

I believe that the theorem is proven: the electronic translator has arrived at a stable version (the reproduction of pronouns does not count, this is an obvious defect in the program). So, the truth criterion of real poetry is proved: looping during machine translation. At the same time, they proved the criterion of the quality of computer programs: real programs always live their lives regardless of the ideas of their authors. The primitive interface to the web translator allowed us to notice a deep pattern and solve an important philological problem.