• PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 days 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.

    • NostraDavid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 days 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.

      • servobobo@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days 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.

      • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days 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.