42

Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: mjche...@socs.uts.EDU.AU (Mark J Cherkas)
Date: 2 Nov 1993 11:50:35 +1100
Local: Mon, Nov 1 1993 5:50 pm
Subject: Why 42 ?

I am new to this group so bear with this beginners question:
Why is the answer 42 ?
Has Douglas Adams ever explained this ?


		
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: fvkam...@cs.vu.nl (Kampen van F)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 11:50:41 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 4:50 am
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?

mjche...@socs.uts.EDU.AU (Mark J Cherkas) writes:
>I am new to this group so bear with this beginners question:
>Why is the answer 42 ?
>Has Douglas Adams ever explained this ?

NO, HELP, NOT AGAIN THIS NEVER ENDING DISCUSSION!!!
PLEASE NO! (Spare you precious bandwith...)

In binary it appears to be 101010 (VERY CONSPICUOUS)
Als there is some fooling arount with 2b OR (NOT 2b) (possibly with
some additional parantheses, I did not bother to check this).
(To be or not to be),
Sigh, it's very very very complicated.
YOU DON"T want to KNOW

Greetings
Florentijn van Kampen

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Florentijn van Kampen         | "O dear", says God, "I hadn't      |
| fvkam...@cs.vu.nl             | thought of that", and promptly     |
| (...) The World is Music (...)| vanishes in a puff of logic"       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: Rob...@c3consult.comm.se (Robert Svebeck)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 08:52:26 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 1:52 am
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?

This is one-of-the-many explenations:

Douglas Adams The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
||||||| ||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||| || ||| ||||||
7       +5    +3  +11         +5    +2 +3  +6     = 42 !


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 07:51:46 GMT
Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 12:51 am
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?

In Article <2b4asr$...@syzygy.socs.uts.edu.au>, mjche...@socs.uts.EDU.AU
(Mark J Cherkas) wrote:

>I am new to this group so bear with this beginners question:
>Why is the answer 42?
>Has Douglas Adams ever explained this?

The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an
ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations,
base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk,
stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.

Best,

Douglas Adams
London, UK
Currently in Santa Fe, NM

		
Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: jdsha...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jack Death)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 16:53:42 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 9:53 am
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?
In article 
 ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes:

>The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an
>ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations,
>base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk,
>stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.

    Hmmmm... I kinda figured it was something like that, but then
again if the REAL answer to life the universe and everything WERE
42, it would be a common number to _guess_ or _pick_, wouldn't it?
I think that whether you, Mr. Adams, picked it intentionaly or not,
you hit the right answer anyways. (Besides isn't it Fun to see just
how many poeple are looking for this number to show up everywhere
they go?  :)  )

C U LAZER,
Jeffrey D. Shaffer


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: m...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Mike Vermillion)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 18:01:11 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 2 1993 11:01 am
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?

In article  ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes:
>The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an
>ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations,
>base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk,
>stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.

Thank you very, very, very much Mr. Adams.  I find it hard to
believe that this answer wasn't obvious to everyone from the start.

Will the rest of you please stop now?

Mike


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: jmars...@unix2.tcd.ie (Ken)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 17:08:36 GMT
Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 10:08 am
Subject: Do not kill off the "Why 42 ?"

>The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an
>ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations,
>base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk,
>stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.

But, perhaps your subconscious mind was giving you (and then all of
us) some wild insight to just what life is really all about ???

Ken. (Not wanting to see a funny thread die and lose all those wierd
possible explanations !).

---------------------->e-mail to: jmars...@unix2.tcd.ie<--------------------
You're all clear and my psychometer indicates smooth sailing.
                   -  7-Zark-7  (The Jupiter Moon Menace)
---------------------->e-mail to: jmars...@unix2.tcd.ie<--------------------


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: schou...@sp51.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten)
Date: 03 Nov 1993 17:19:52 GMT
Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 10:19 am
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?

In article  ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes:

>The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an
>ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations,
>base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk,
>stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.

Right, think you know something about it, eh?
Surely you're denying your subconscious interconnectedness with
tibetan monks possessed of 13 fingers!?

Or isn't it true that you originally wrote HHGG in a previous
life in 1924?

You can't fool us with simple facts!

Dale Schouten
schou...@uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: alt.fan.douglas-adams
From: urli...@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Date: 3 Nov 1993 15:06:24 +0100
Local: Wed, Nov 3 1993 7:06 am
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?
In alt.fan.douglas-adams, article ,
  ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes:

> The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an
> ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations,
> base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk,
> stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.

Bull. Or, to quote what a German philosopher once said to Isaac Asimov (it's
in his autobiography somewhere), "Just because you wrote it doesn't mean that
you know anything at all about it."

:-)

--
You should emulate your heroes, but don't carry it too far.
Especially if they're dead.
--
Matthias Urlichs
Schleiermacherstraße 12
90491 Nürnberg (Germany)