• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    798 months ago

    It only took a couple billion monkeys a few million years but one did eventually write out the full works of Shakespeare

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      288 months ago

      This is always how I’ve chosen to interpret the expression. It’s not a theory. It’s an observation.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s a thought experiment, not an observation. The idea is that if you have infinity and it’s truly random than eventually all possibilities emerge somewhere within that.

        The idea of infinite monkeys typing randomly on infinite typewriters is that eventually one of them would accidentally type out all the works of Shakespeare. Many more would type out parts of the works of Shakespeare. And many many many more would type random garbage.

        If we then take that forwadd imagine for a moment the multiverse is also infinite and random, then every possible universe would exist somewhere in that multiverse.

        It can be taken in other directions too. It’s a way of cocneptualising the implications of infinity and true randomness.

        Meanwhile actual Shakespeare had intelligence and wrote and created his works. Him being a monkey writing Shakespeare is just a sly humerous observation, but it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the thought experiment and the idea it is trying to convey.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yeah, the point isn’t that they could write Shakespeare. But that they would write everything we could imagine + everything in between that.

          It tries to explain the concept of infinity. Which is mind boggling to any human.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          Also since it should happen once, that means that it also happens an infinite number of times, but a smaller infinity than the whole infinity.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          78 months ago

          Did you choose to overlook my intentional usage of the word “chosen” just to mansplain something obvious? I did not make my choice out of ignorance, but I appreciate you assuming I did.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        68 months ago

        No, the FIRST monkey to write Shakespeare used a feather and ink.

        It only took a couple hundred years after all those millions for them to be written on the typewriter.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      48 months ago

      A property of hydrogen is that, given enough hydrogen and time, eventually it will write out the full works of Shakespeare.

    • Lovable Sidekick
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 months ago

      Turns out not quite. In the monkey version Hamlet says, “To be, or what.”

  • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    That research is worst type of reddit ACKCHYUALLY taken to academia

    I fear the plague of reddit brainrot will soon make even research papers plain insufferable. Would you want to have moderator of 11 subreddits and holder of top 1% commenters achievement in your research group?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Something weird I’ve been noticing. Lately I’ve been unintentionally minimizing comments before I’ve finished reading them. Just happened with yours. It’s like some subconscious part of my brain goes “booorrring!” half way through reading anything longer than two sentences and immediately goes for the next dopamine kick.

      And I’m not knocking your comment. I was genuinely interested in what I was reading. It’s just a little troubling. I dropped Reddit and Lemmy a while back because I felt like I was becoming addicted. I lasted a few months, but evidently I’ve fallen off the wagon.

      • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Don’t worry I actually nurture my internet presence to be a little controversial and edgy. Not for every taste but those who enjoy we instantly are friends. It’s a filter of sorts. I want ppl who feel offended about such things to block me

  • Th4tGuyII
    link
    fedilink
    168 months ago

    Them saying that is like me saying Bizmuth isn’t radioactive because it’s half-life is many, many times longer than even the most conservative estimates for the heat-death of the universe.

    In finite time that’s effectively true, because the universe itself would decay before a block of bizmuth lost any significant weight - but it isn’t physically true, because with infinite time a block of bizmuth left completely alone would evaporate away via alpha decay.

    And that’s the point of infinite time - to let you throw away time and probabilities as obstacles and strictly focus on whether something could physically happen, rather than the odds of it occurring.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    104
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The entire thing is utterly ridiculous. The meme is infinite monkeys.

    The mathematician said, “But what if it was 200k monkeys?”

    Reporters claim mathematician proved infinite monkeys meme is wrong.

    200,000 does not equal infinite!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      358 months ago

      The whole thing is dumb if you accept a premise of “infinite monkeys”. An infinite number of monkeys will type the works of shakespeare immediately, because an infinite number of them will start with the very first key they hit and continue until the end. (So it’ll be complete exactly as fast as a monkey can type it, typing as fast as simianly possible, with no mistakes.) You don’t even need the infinite time.

      It only becomes interesting if you look at the finite scenarios.

      And BTW, the lifespan of the universe is finite due to the eventual decay of all matter, including the monkeys and the typewriters. There’s no infinite time.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        You assume that monkeys are identical, communicate with each other and know what they are doing. Take one of these away and all of the infinite monkeys will press the same buttons basically making them one monkey. Take another and they will type random gibberish.

        The point of the dilemma is for non of those to be the case. The point is can Shakespeare or anything valuable to humans appear in random given enough time and resources? Basically can “the AI” as we know it now that doesn’t actually have “I” create something new and valuable?

        And the answer is(going from the basic maths) yes it may produce something cool but it also may never produce Shakespeare or anything cool and will never know what it can do and what it can’t.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        48 months ago

        If you follow it, you quickly end up with the Infinite Improbability Drive from The Hitchhikers Guide - if you have an infinite number of typewriters, an infinite number of them will be loaded with paper that already has the complete works of Shakespeare written on it

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The whole thing is dumb if you accept a premise of “infinite monkeys”.

        If thats the point where you want to draw the line, I guess that it becomes dumb at exactly that point.

        But the point of the thought experiment is that it says what you said: it will definitelly happen because infinity is absurdly big number.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        238 months ago

        A more interesting calculation the mathematician should have done is how many monkeys are needed to write Shakespeare in the lifespan of the universe rather than starting with 200k.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          I don’t think there is a finite number of monkeys that would be guaranteed to do so in the lifespan of the universe.

          Best we could do is calculate the expected number of monkeys it would take, assuming accurate probabilities, which I also don’t think is possible to determine.

          You can’t just take one divided by the number of possible characters that could be typed because monkeys can do many things other than typing away. A high portion of them would likely instead destroy the typewriter. In the infinite monkeys scenario, an infinite amount would destroy their typewriter in the middle of Hamlet’s to be or not to be soliloquy.

          Plus the odds of it actually happening are going to be so astronomically low that if you filled the known universe with monkeys, you’d end up with monkey stars and black holes before any Shakespeare.

          It really only works as a thought experiment about the nature of infinity.

          Unless there’s an infinite multiverse, in which case we are in the universe where a monkey wrote out the complete works of Shakespeare. That monkey’s name? Shakespeare. (And yes, many clapped when he did so.)

      • Anti-Face Weapon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Saying that last bit about time is not particularly meaningful for two reasons.

        First of all, we do not especially know the end state of the universe. It may not be true that all matter decays, and protons may be stable. We may be in a false vacuum which will spontaneously collapse in large timespans.

        Second of all, the hypothetical is a thought experiment. The monkeys are a placeholder for any random generation of characters. The thought experiment also does not take into consideration the food required to feed monkeys for infinite time, nor their aging, mutation over generations, and waste logistics. It’s not meaningful then to suddenly decide to apply the laws of physics to them. The only laws applicable in this scenario are logic and mathematics.

        I generally agree with the rest of your take, although I disagree where you say the thought experiment is dumb. I only have an issue with that last point lol. Cheers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      88 months ago

      200,000 does not equal infinite!

      It’s close though. I can’t think of a bigger number.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      28 months ago

      True nathematician would never make a mistake distinguishing finite and infinite cardinality. Countability, on the other hand… (but that’s a separate issue)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    138 months ago

    Back in my IT support days, IPX routing had a “Count to Infinity” problem when the number of hops between sites went above 15. We used to joke that this made 16 “Infinity”.

    Being nerds at the time, we did napkin math to prove the Shakespearian Monkey Quotient was 256cmy (combined monkey years) for “Hamlet”.

    • MathiasTCK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 months ago

      Combined Monkey Years just aren’t the same since their lead singer left, I’m hoping they improve eventually.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    48 months ago

    I welcome the visual once BBC realises the limit as k goes from 0 to pos infinity, of sum n=0 to k, for (1 / (1 + n)) actually converges and has a real solution.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    98 months ago

    I once heard that monkeys will just go to the typewriter, tipe the same letter a few times and leave. Doesn’t sound like Shakespeare to me

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    108 months ago

    But monkeys never ask questions.

    Science has yet to determine if monkeys would be able to type “wherefore art thou Romeo?”

  • Gort
    link
    fedilink
    English
    138 months ago

    This thread could well have been written by an infinite amount of monkeys, too.

    Thoiei0z ao;qjlk a 2897n3 eiie??! hoenwk a ;jihiwe a wiiien theohg rosebud oiwoi;qne i93823hnn banana

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    68 months ago

    Ð ſtu̇dı ƿėz t ſı ƿėt tuımfreım Shakespeare kᵫd huıpėþetikėlı imṙdj ovṙ. Ð rizu̇ltſ ſu̇djeſt ðæt enı givin mu̇nkı ƿᵫd nıd ė greıtṙ ėmaunt v tuım ðæn ðeıṙ ƿᵫd bı u̇ntil hıt deþ t prėduſ ıvin ė rekėgnuızėbėl ėmaunt v Shakespeare.

    spoiler

    The study was to see what timeframe shakespeare could hypothetical emerge over. The results suggest that any given monkey would need a greater amount of time than there would be until heat death to produce ecen a recognizeable amount of Shakespeare.