this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
1154 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

11111 readers
2412 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1154
Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy Infintiy (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

What part of Infinity is a mathematician, of all people, failing to comprehend? So what if it takes until cosmological decade 1,000 or 1 million or 1mil⁹⁰⁰⁰, it's still possible on an infinite timescale, of one could devise a way for it all to survive the heat death of the universe ad infinitum.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks 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”.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying it's not just improbable (if it were improbable, then yes, it would happen), I'm saying it's impossible because of behavior.

As a small example, let's say you wanted to type the ABC's. However, every time you typed, your finger slid to press the key next to it as well. Then, no matter how many times you tried, you would never be able to type the ABC's. That's an exaggerated example of what I believe the monkeys would do. They simply would not be able to type letters at random. The way they work, they would be forced to mush buttons that do not allow for whole words.

If there was another scenario where there were about 30 boxes (one for each letter and any punctuation needed), and the monkey had to get a banana from one of the boxes, and that is what 'typed' the script, then yes, an infinite number of monkeys would be able to type Shakespeare. But because it's a typewriter, I don't think even an infinite amount would be able to.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No. If a monkey inherently NEVER, EVER hits one key at a time, then I gu3ss that scenario would make it impossible but that's just stating that something is impossible in the first place and doesn't affect the actual thought experiment in any way. Assuming that the typing monkeys literally ever have the possibility of only hitting one key at a time, no matter how many times they press two keys at a time and type nonsense, they will eventually and necessarily, bc of the definition of infinity, type Shakespeare. I don't know how I can explain this better but I'll try later when I have some time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The theorem is only true if monkeys are random. But monkeys are not random, and therefore this cannot be proved true using monkeys.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Luckily this isn't a mathematical problem, and we don't need to prove it to be true. Something can be true without being proven.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It can be, but it isn't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Believe what you wish. Nobody can make you see the obvious if you bury your head in the sand...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Right back at ya.. obviously.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks 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".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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, but that is a big assumption that a monkey would be actually random.