• Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • KaiFeng@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months 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”.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

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

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months 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.

    • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months 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.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months 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.

        • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months 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.

          • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months 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.

            • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                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.

                • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

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

                  • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    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.

      • NostraDavid@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months 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.

        • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months 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.

        • servobobo@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months 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.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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.