> One could argue that if the user perceives a X, then it produces a X.
This can be stretched to turn anything into anything else. For example, why can't this comment be a maze? In that case 10 REM; 20 END is my even shorter, more elegant maze program because I see a maze in it.
Some constraints that are typically implied when people say "computer generated mazes":
- They are solvable (have a start and end)
- OR they loop endlessly with no dead ends.
- Walls and spaces consume 1 element on the grid.
- No space on the grid is surrounded by all 4 NWSE walls.
>>One could argue that if the user perceives a X, then it produces a X.
>This can be stretched to turn anything into anything else. For example, why can't this comment be a maze?
Because unlike the one-liner nobody perceives it as a maze, so the "this can be stretched to turn anything into anything else" argument is tenuous...
> This can be stretched to turn anything into anything else. For example, why can't this comment be a maze?
Name one person who perceives your comment as a maze.
It must be perceived as a maze by people for it to apply.
As it stands, I’m not sure if people perceive your comment as a maze.
Maybe theoretically there’s a nonzero number of people who perceive the comment as a maze. But unless your audience is those few people, there wouldn’t be much utility in it. In the OP’s example this maze perception is not only highly widespread but it’s also leveraged for a particular intended effect.
This can be stretched to turn anything into anything else. For example, why can't this comment be a maze? In that case 10 REM; 20 END is my even shorter, more elegant maze program because I see a maze in it.
Some constraints that are typically implied when people say "computer generated mazes":
- They are solvable (have a start and end)
- OR they loop endlessly with no dead ends.
- Walls and spaces consume 1 element on the grid.
- No space on the grid is surrounded by all 4 NWSE walls.