this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
128 points (76.9% liked)

Not The Onion

12250 readers
1335 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 96 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

Yeah, no, using a finite number to try and disprove a theory that is all specifically about infinite numbers isn't poking holes in anything..

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Trash "research" and trash journalism covering it. First they find that monkeys would write Shakespeare, it would just take on average longer than the entire existence of the universe. They then try to infer that how long it takes is relevant. It is not. The calculation is vaguely interesting as a curio but the shoehorned "discussion" and interpretation to get attention is crap and another example of bad science misleading people.

It's pointless and stupid - the thought experiment itself is that infinite monkeys typing would eventually type the whole of Shakespeare. Not how long it would take. The whole point of it is that in a truly random system all known patterns should eventually emerge somewhere within it. The length of time it takes for the pattern to emerge is irrelevant as the idea is based in infinity. So for example if there is a truly random infinite multiverse then in theory all imaginable possibilities would exist somewhere within it at some point.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The whole point of it is that in a truly random system all known patterns should eventually emerge somewhere within it.

So pi (probably) has this property. There are some joke compression programs around this (they don't really work because it takes up more space to store where something in pi is, than storing the thing itself). But it is funny, to think that pi could theoretically hold every past, present, and future piece of information within those digits after the decimal.

https://github.com/philipl/pifs

https://ntietz.com/blog/why-we-cant-compress-messages-with-pi/

[–] addie 4 points 1 week ago

Also interesting is the notion of 'Kolmogorov Complexity' - what is the shortest programme that could produce a given output? Worst case for a truly random sequence would just be to copy it out, but a programme that outputs eg. a million digits of pi can actually be quite short. As can a programme that outputs a particular block cypher for an empty input. In general, it is very difficult to decide how long a programme is needed to produce a given output, and what the upper limit of compression could be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"Extremely unlikely" != "never"

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's very unlikely to brute force modern encryption; but you might get lucky and crack it after only 3 or 4 tries. Just because there are 18 quadrillion+ possible permutations, doesn't mean you have to go through all of them before you find the right solution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] riplin@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are an infinite number of values between one and two and none of them equal three.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago

True and irrelevant.

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wasn't the saying an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters? If so then they'd write Hamlet and indeed every other book written or ever will be written in however long it would conceivably take to type them out if you were copying them.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I don't really know how this myth? paradox is supposed to work? I know infinity isn't a number but a concept and in theory I understand what it's trying to say, but if I have an infinite amount of scrap yards and infinite amount of tornadoes, they can go on forever, but they'll never assemble a Boing 747.

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

An infinite number of monkeys typing randomly on an infinite number of typewriters, so long as the writing is truly random, will eventually write every novel. Once you factor in the infinite number of monkeys, every novel in existence will not only be written, it will be written an infinite number of times.

It's like saying if you had a random number generator and gave it an infinite amount of time generating 16 numbers at a time, it would eventually generate every bank card number ever an infinite number of times. Give that task to an infinite number of random number generators and they will generate every bank card number an infinite number of times instantaneously.

Come to think of it, if the tornado throws around junk completely randomly, and provided there's enough material in every junkyard to assemble a plane, the tornado will eventually assemble it. That's the power of infinity and randomness.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not the same the monkeys have all the capabilities and tools to cohesively combine letters words and white space. A tornado cannot weld and program controllers and solder. But a monkey can type randomly even wacking randomly. The idea is that given an infinite truly random output of text by the nature of infinity the text of Shakespeare will be outputted in its entirety eventually

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 week ago

CLICKBAIT the theory goes "if given an infinite amount of time, a monkey pressing keys on a typewriter would eventually write the complete works of William Shakespeare." and then they say that would take longer than the universe would exist. SEE THE ORIGINAL QUOTE... INFINITE TIME. Also that is if it went through every combination. Due to Random Chance it could happen the 3rd try of you doing it.

This is a nothing burger of a story about some mathematicians that crunched some of the numbers involved and didn't like what they saw.

Awww, Muffin.

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean we've not had infinite monkeys yet one of us already wrote Shakespeare's works

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] oo1@lemmings.world 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I think their research is empirically falsified already. If chimp = monkey, then "simian" is reasonable generalisation of "monkey" - also that reflects a lot of real english speakers usage of the words.

A less than infinite number of simians have already done it once.

Not to mention that I think they're assuming no evolution. Fucking chriatian fundamentalists.

[–] Flax_vert 5 points 1 week ago

Not to mention that I think they're assuming no evolution. Fucking chriatian fundamentalists.

Wut.

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not christian and I assumed the experiment didn't allow for evolution as it was not specified in its parameters. I assumed that the monkeys were a horrible (and very wrong) analogy for random number generators, were immortal, and had no time for making offspring as they were all trained and consumed with typewriting, or physically separated from one another.

The monkeys would produce wildly more limited results than a random number generator mind you, and they are essentially frozen in evolutionary time, so they are not going to be writing shakespear.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago

FACT: 90% of typing monkeys quit right when they're about to write Shakespeare.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Thats not the point of the thought experiment.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Next they're going to tell us that a bird sharpening its beak every thousand years wouldn't wear out a mountain made of diamond.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

It's soft tissue from benares touching a mountain every century, right? A kalpa IIRC.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

A stupid article akin to someone on Lemmy misunderstanding an idium and going "well actually...".

And that's coming from me, a person who likes knowing how insanely unlikely it is a guess ever longer and longer pass phrases. A computer trying to brute force Hamlet would also fail before the heat death of the universe (probably, anyway- do the math and you too can publish junk!).

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 week ago

Yes, a different cuestion usually has a different answer

[–] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Apes, actually.

[–] Terrapinjoe@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

So the researchers didn't refute the assumption "given an infinite amount of time," and instead chose to address the long finite-time case, which is fundamentally different.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The study found a finite number of monkeys in a finite amount of time would not write all the works of Shakespeare.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Which is not what the common saying said.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

To quote the theme song of a science show on BBC radio:

If infinite monkeys type every day
They may accidentally write ‘Hamlet’ the play
But they'll probably shit on it and throw it away
In the Infinite Monkey Cage

[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Article about monkeys not being able to complete the works of Shakespeare has this line in it:

Despite its name, the so-called heat death would actually be slow and cold.

Science reporting is such a weird job.

[–] goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

Despite its name, so-called kidney disease is rarely caused by an overabundance of kidneys

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This doesn't bode well for my typewriting monkey startup

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago

Not with that attitude.

[–] FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A monkey already wrote Shakespeare. Anything it's possible.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I chimp, therefore I am.

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

200,000 chimpanzees is = to zero monkeys. The study is flawed.

[–] SolacefromSilence@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago

"It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times"

[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

Basic information theory.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

No. The expected value is that they wont but u can theoreticly "get lucky" having the random event occur at any point during the proccess of random events.

Tldr we wouldnt expect it but its still possible.

load more comments
view more: next ›