Comment on Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy

Etterra@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• KaiFeng@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I have read the paper, the news make it seem like something that is not. It’s a tough experiment and mostly a joke. From the paper closing remarks:

  Given plausible estimates of the lifespan of the universe and the amount of possible monkey typists available, this still leaves huge orders of magnitude differences between the resources available and those required for non-trivial text generation. As such, we have to conclude that Shakespeare himself inadvertently provided the answer as to whether monkey labour could meaningfully be a replacement for human endeavour as a source of scholarship or creativity. To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”.

  source
• PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  It’s also possible that it’s not possible even on an infinite time scale. A quick example: if you asked an algorithm to choose a number, and you choose 6536639876555721, but the algorithm only chooses from the infinite number of even numbers, it will never choose your number. So for the monkeys, if they are just not ‘programmed’ to ever be able to write a whole Shakespeare play, they will not be able to even with infinite time and infinite moneys.

  source

  • GiveMemes@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Disagree. Within the confines of the thought experiment the monkeys are working with the standard alphabet and punctuation. There’s no reason to assume that they would never use the letter t or something like that, especially given the infinite time scale.

    source

    • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I see what you’re saying, but I do think they would have behavioral ‘rules’ that would stop them even on an infinite time scale. It would work if monkeys were capable of pressing one letter at a time, walking away, and pressing another letter and so forth… and while that’s of course physically possible for the monkeys to do, I don’t think it’s actually possible because they are susceptible to their own behavior. Not saying they would never type one specific letter, but a better example would be the behavior of rolling their finger/hand while pressing a letter, such that a conglomeration of letters are pressed in a way that would never match a Shakespeare play.

      source

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        The problem is that you’re underestimating infinity then. If it only happens 1 in 1000000000000^10000 times but there’s an infinite number of attempts over an infinite amount of tine, it’s still bound to happen eventually.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • NostraDavid@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    The “Infinite monkey theorem” concerns itself with Probability (the mathematical field). It has been mathematically proven that given the random input (the mathematical kind - not the human-created kind) of the monkeys, and the infinite time, the probability of the “complete works of William Shakespeare” rolling out of the typewriter in between the other random output is 1.

    It’s a mathematical theorem that just uses monkeys to speak to the imagination, not a practical exercise, other than to prove the maths.

    You should look into another brain-breaking probability problem called the “Monty Hall Problem”. Note that some of the greatest mathematical minds of the time failed said puzzle. Switching 100% increases the chance of winning. No, it won’t guarantee a win, but it will increase your chances, mathematically.

    source

    • BluesF@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The probability is 1 but that does not mean that it will happen. There is a set of options where it does not happen. It happens “almost surely”.

      source
    • servobobo@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The proof assumes that the monkeys mash the keys at random and that there is a nonzero probability to write any chunk of text appearing in Shakespeare’s works. If there is a section that the monkeys cannot generate, for example if we removed the letter ‘e’ from their typewriter, the monkeys will never write the complete works of Shakespeare regardless of the amount of time spent on it, so their point still stands and it depends on the assumptions you make about the monkey typists’ typing skills.

      source
    • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Yeah I get that, what I’m arguing is that monkey input != random input. Therefore the probably is not 1.

      And the Monty Hall problem is really cool, and yes, I’ve seen it before, but it doesn’t have anything to do with this one.

      source
  • Tibi@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Except for (cosmic-) bitflips and/or evolution changing the programming

    source
• Donkter@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Hell, infinite monkeys over a finite amount of time or finite monkeys over an infinite amount of time does the trick.

  source

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I was about to say…

    An infinite amount of monkeys could (depending on how you make the rules) write Shakespeare within a second.

    if each monkey just has to type one letter on a page and you just take a group of monkeys in a long line and you read each letter on the line you would read Shakespeare. It would be done in a second.

    source
• Dragonstaff@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I’m not terribly bright, but I’ve never understood the original statement.

  If I bash my right hand on a typewriter an infinite number of times, that will never turn into the complete works of Shakespeare. If we assume a monkey will enter one random letter at a time, that probably would.

  source