Pangram: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Even further pruning: so many examples is just excessive. |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
There are exhaustive lists of some self-enumerating sentences [http://home.att.net/~rhhardin/selfref.html here] and thus also of certain pangrams, in English, Italian and Latin. These were computed using BDD's ([[binary decision diagram]]s). |
There are exhaustive lists of some self-enumerating sentences [http://home.att.net/~rhhardin/selfref.html here] and thus also of certain pangrams, in English, Italian and Latin. These were computed using BDD's ([[binary decision diagram]]s). |
||
==Perfect pangrams from restricted sets== |
|||
===Postal codes=== |
|||
Four perfect pangrams using the postal abbreviations of the [[United States|US]] states and territories and the [[Canada|Canadian]] provinces and territories are: |
|||
*[[Arizona|AZ]], [[Delaware|DE]], [[Florida|FL]], [[Guam|GU]], [[Kansas|KS]], [[Manitoba|MB]], [[New Jersey|NJ]], [[Ohio|OH]], [[Puerto Rico|PR]], [[Quebec|QC]], [[Texas|TX]], [[Virgin Islands|VI]], [[Wyoming|WY]] |
|||
*AZ, DE, FL, GU, MB, NJ, OH, PR, QC, [[Saskatchewan|SK]], TX, VI, WY |
|||
*AZ, FL, GU, [[Hawaii|HI]], [[Kentucky|KY]], MB, NJ, [[Oregon|OR]], [[Prince Edward Island|PE]], QC, [[South Dakota|SD]], TX, [[West Virginia|WV]] |
|||
*AZ, FL, GU, KY, MB, NJ, OH, PE, [[Rhode Island|RI]], QC, SD, TX, WV |
|||
===Chemical element symbols=== |
|||
It is not possible to make a perfect pangram out of current [[chemical element]] symbols, but it is possible using two disused ones. UNQ, for unnilquadium, now known as [[Rutherfordium]], is in every pangram, as it is only one of two chemical symbols with a Q. The two Us in UUQ ([[ununquadium]]) prevent its use. The other letter necessitating disused symbols is J; the available symbols are J (for [[iodine]]), Jg (for Jargonium/[[Hafnium]]), or Jo (for Joliotium/[[Dubnium]]). |
|||
Here is one of many possibilities using Jo: |
|||
*[[Aluminum|Al]], [[Berkelium|Bk]], [[Californium|Cf]], [[Gadolinium|Gd]], [[Hydrogen|H]], [[Dubnium|Jo]], [[Meitnerium|Mt]], [[Phosphorus|P]], [[Silicon|Si]], [[Unnilquadium|Unq]], [[Vanadium|V]], [[Tungsten|W]], [[Xenon|Xe]], [[Yttrium|Y]], [[Zirconium|Zr]] |
|||
===[[United States Representative]]s' initials=== |
|||
It is not possible to create a perfect pangram from the current US Representatives' initials as none contain "Q"; however, only one former Representative is necessary. [[Xavier Becerra]] contributes an X to every pangram. [[Bill Young]] can also be used in place of [[Don Young]] if a perfect pangram is unnecessary. In the example below [[Jack Quinn (politics)|Jack Quinn]], the most recent Representative with a Q, is used; for a full list of possibilities, see the [[List of former members of the United States House of Representatives (Q)|list of former Representatives with Q as an initial]]. |
|||
*[[C. L. Otter|CO]], [[Don Young|DY]], [[Ernest Istook|EI]], [[Jack Quinn (politics)|JQ]], [[Louie Gohmert|LG]], [[Mark Udall|MU]], [[Neil Abercrombie|NA]], [[Ron Kind|RK]], [[Stephanie Herseth Sandlin|SH]], [[Tom Price (US politician)|TP]], [[Virginia Foxx|VF]], [[Xavier Becerra|XB]], [[Zach Wamp|ZW]] |
|||
===United States airport codes=== |
|||
Airports have two abbreviations each: [[ICAO]] codes and [[IATA]] codes. ICAO codes are 4 letters each, IATA codes are 3 letters each. As 26 is neither divisible by 3 nor 4, any perfect pangram must contain a combination of them. The only possible 26-letter combinations contain either six IATA codes and two ICAO codes or 2 IATA codes and 5 ICAO codes; the latter is impossible because all ICAO codes in the United States begin with a "K" or a "P", so only two can be used. Therefore, all airport code pangrams consist of 6 IATA codes and 2 ICAO codes. Here is one of many examples, in which only airports deemed "primary" by the [[FAA]] are used and where no two are in the same state: |
|||
*[[Houghton County Memorial Airport|CMX]], [[Key West International Airport|EYW]], [[Walker Field Airport|GJT]], [[Norfolk International Airport|ORF]], [[Friedman Memorial Airport|SUN]], [[Valdez Airport|VDZ]], [[Albuquerque International Sunport|KABQ]], [[Lihu'e Airport|PHLI]] |
|||
===Country codes=== |
|||
All countries have a two letter [[ISO 3166-1 alpha-2]] code. Here is an example of a pangram using these: |
|||
*[[Bangladesh|BD]], [[Cape Verde|CV]], [[Ethiopia|ET]], [[France|FR]], [[Honduras|HN]], [[Israel|IL]], [[Japan|JP]], [[Kyrgyzstan|KG]], [[Mexico|MX]], [[Qatar|QA]], [[Somalia|SO]], [[Uruguay|UY]], [[Zimbabwe|ZW]] |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
Revision as of 20:50, 15 July 2008
An editor has nominated this article for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it. |
This article needs additional citations for verification. |
It has been suggested that The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2007. |
A pangram (Greek: pan gramma, "every letter"), or holoalphabetic sentence, is a sentence which uses every letter of the alphabet at least once. Pangrams are used to display typefaces and test equipment. For example, the pangram The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog was utilized by Western Union to test Telex/TWX data communication equipment for accuracy and reliability. [citation needed]
Interesting pangrams are generally short; constructing a sentence that includes the fewest repeat letters possible is a challenging task. Longer pangrams that are enlightening, humorous, or eccentric can be noteworthy in their own right. In a sense, the pangram is the opposite of the lipogram, where the aim is to omit one or more letters.
Ideographic scripts
Ideographic scripts, that is, writing systems composed principally of logograms, cannot be used to produce pangrams in the literal sense, since they are radically different from alphabets or other phonetic writing systems. In such scripts, the total number of signs is large and imprecisely defined, so producing a text with every possible sign is impossible. However, various analogies to pangrams are feasible, including traditional pangrams in a romanization. In addition, it is possible to create pangrams that demonstrate certain aspects of ideographic characters.
- Chinese:
- The Thousand Character Classic is a one-thousand-character poem in which each character is used exactly once, but it does not include all Chinese characters.
- The single character 永 (permanence) incorporates every basic stroke used to write Chinese characters exactly once, as described in the Eight Principles of Yong.
Self-enumerating pangrams
A self-enumerating pangram, or a pangrammic autogram, is one which describes exactly the number of letters it itself contains. Because changing the description changes the numbers of letters used in the description, the task of finding such a pangram is exceedingly complex.
This particularly interesting kind of pangram arose from some verbal horseplay between Douglas Hofstadter, an AI researcher and writer for Scientific American, Rudy Kousbroek, a Dutch linguist and essayist, and Lee Sallows, a British electronics engineer. Hofstadter posed the problem of sentences that describe themselves, prompting Sallows to devise the following:
- Only the fool would take trouble to verify that his sentence was composed of ten a's, three b's, four c's, four d's, forty-six e's, sixteen f's, four g's, thirteen h's, fifteen i's, two k's, nine l's, four m's, twenty-five n's, twenty-four o's, five p's, sixteen r's, forty-one s's, thirty-seven t's, ten u's, eight v's, eight w's, four x's, eleven y's, twenty-seven commas, twenty-three apostrophes, seven hyphens and, last but not least, a single !
This, while interesting, is not a complete pangram as it lacks a j, q, and z. Kousbroek published a Dutch equivalent, which spurred Sallows, who lives in the Netherlands and reads the paper where Kousbroek writes his essays, to think harder about this problem in order to solve it more generally. Initial attempts to write a program for this came to naught, but, in 1984, he decided to construct a dedicated piece of hardware for this task, the Pangram Machine. This accepts a description of the initial sentence fragment, and tries to fill in the blanks. The result was later published in Scientific American in October of 1984, as follows:
- This Pangram contains four a's, one b, two c's, one d, thirty e's, six f's, five g's, seven h's, eleven i's, one j, one k, two l's, two m's, eighteen n's, fifteen o's, two p's, one q, five r's, twenty-seven s's, eighteen t's, two u's, seven v's, eight w's, two x's, three y's, & one z.[1]
There are exhaustive lists of some self-enumerating sentences here and thus also of certain pangrams, in English, Italian and Latin. These were computed using BDD's (binary decision diagrams).