this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
293 points (92.0% liked)

Technology

58981 readers
4181 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The question that everyone has been dying to know has been answered. Finally! What will scientists study next?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 163 points 10 hours ago (8 children)

The theorem holds true. The theorem states that the monkey has infinite time, not just the lifetime of our universe.

That's just lazy science to change the conditions to make sensational headlines. Bad scientists!

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It also makes a pretty bold claim about us actually knowing the lifespan of the universe.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

How are they defining the end of the universe?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

Probably very shortly after dinner has been served at that restaurant.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 hours ago

Heat death would be my assumption, so between about 10^100 and 10^106 years

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago

We know such an infinitesimally small amount about what is actually happening in the universe that any claims to be capable of predicting it's end are patently absurd.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago

If a tree folds in the forest and there's no one there to hear it does it make a sound?

For this experiment scientists recruited Gilbert, no one really pays much attention to him, and it's assumed the universe won't either.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (5 children)

I have a way to make it work.

Have the monkey write down a single character. Just one. 29/30 of the time, it won't be the same character as the first one in Shakespeare's complete works; discard that sheet of paper, then try again. 1/30 of the time the monkey will type out the right character; when they do it, keep that sheet of paper and make copies out of it.

Now, instead of giving a completely blank sheet to the monkey, give them one of those copies. And let them type the second character. If different from the actual second character in Shakespeare's works, discard that sheet and give him a new copy (with the right 1st char still there - the monkey did type it out!). Do this until the monkey types the correct second character. Keep that sheet with 2 correct chars, make copies out of it, and repeat the process for the third character.

And then the fourth, the fifth, so goes on.

Since swapping sheets all the time takes more time than letting the monkey go wild, let's increase the time per typed character (right or wrong), from 1 second to... let's say, 60 times more. A whole minute. And since the monkey will type junk 29/30 of the time, it'll take around 30min to type the right character.

It would take even longer, right? Well... not really. Shakespeare's complete works have around 5 million characters, so the process should take 5*10⁶ * 30min = 2.5 million hours, or 285 years.

But we could do it even better. This approach has a single monkey doing all the work; the paper has 200k of them. We could split Shakespeare's complete works into 200k strings of 25 chars each, and assign each string to a monkey. Each monkey would complete their assignment, on average, after 12h30min; some will take a bit longer, but now we aren't talking about the thermal death of the universe or even centuries, it'll take at most a few days.


Why am I sharing this? I'm not invalidating the paper, mind you, it's cool maths.

I've found this metaphor of monkeys typing Shakespeare quite a bit in my teen years, when I still arsed myself to discuss with creationists. You know, the sort of people who thinks that complex life can't appear due to random mutations, just like a monkey can't type the full works of Shakespeare.

Complex life is not the result of a single "big" mutation, like a monkey typing the full thing out of the blue; it involves selection and inheritance, as the sheets of paper being copied or discarded.

And just like assigning tasks to different monkeys, multiple mutations can pop up independently and get recombined. Not just among sexual beings; even bacteria can transmit genes horizontally.

Already back then (inb4 yes, I was a weird teen...) I developed the skeleton of this reasoning. Now I just plopped the numbers that the paper uses, and here we go.

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

This changes the rules though from check at the end to check at every letter. That's where the real efficiency gain is.... The insertion of an all knowing checker who could have written it himself anyway. The math of permutations vs combinations changes drastically if we change the rules.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I think the point is less about any kind of route to Hamlet, and more about the absurdity of infinite tries in a finite space(time). There are a finite (but extremely large) number of configurations of English characters in a work the length of Hamlet. If you have truly an infinite number of attempts (monkeys, time, or both are actually infinite) and the trials are all truly random (every character is guaranteed to have the same chance as every other) then you will necessarily arrive at that configuration eventually.

As far as your process, of procedurally generating each letter one by one until you have the completed works, we actually have a monkey who more or less did that already. His name is William.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

monkey who more or less did that already. His name is William.

????????

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Well. technically he was an ape rather than a monkey.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Humans are apes, apes are monkeys, paraphyletic groups are bullshit.

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

isnt that a misconception? apes just share a common ancestor with us

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

Among other problems, this fails to account for non-typing activities performed by the monkey, such as damaging the typewriter or attacking the researcher.

285 years increases to a few thousand if you alarmingly frequently have to clean the contents of a monkey's colon out of a typewriter.

And at some point you'd want to further "refine" your selection process by "repairing" the typewriter to have fewer keys and/or causing the typewriter to jam after the required key press. Monkeys like to press the same key over and over again. Good luck getting them to stop once they've pressed a key once.

TL;DR monkeys are chaos, and this will not be easy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

You either spend your life really well or you have way too much time on your hands.

Either way I read your post with happy curiosity. 🙂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 hours ago

They forgot the lifespan of the monkey, those thought experimenters.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 hours ago

Use infinite monkeys.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, that’s why we need at least... two of them.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (7 children)

the paper used the entire population (200 thousand) and would take some 10 ^ 10 ^ 7 heat deaths of the universe

[–] [email protected] 38 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It could happen the very first time a monkey sat down at a typewriter. It's just very unlikely.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

from the wiki article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago

Weird how neither of those numbers are infinities. Almost like the numbers used are unfathomably small in comparison.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 11 hours ago (11 children)

... the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small.

But not zero.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

ok so the monkeys need to type faster

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

Let's put them in open spaces in offices and micro-mananage then, that'll work.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The author is so stupid, the monkey will of old age long before the universe ends.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

But first he will accidentally the whole thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

Has He Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 hours ago

it is also somewhat misleading

...what? No it isn't. Restricting the premise from infinite to any finite amount of time completely negates it. That doesn't prove it's "misleading", it proves anyone that thinks it does has no idea what they're talking about.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not with a typewriter, though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

I would place money on some enthusiast somewhere having typed up Hamlet on a typewriter just for kicks. Surely in the hundreds of years of overlap between humanity, Hamlet, and typewriters, it's happened once. I'd be more concerned with typos.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

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] 9 points 10 hours ago

To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”.

Stealing this to be annoying with

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

Oh yeah? Name ONE ape that wrote Shakespeare. Go on I’ll wait

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago

Let's use our braincells to fix real problems first. Like pants that don't stretch.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I feel like there has to be more to this problem than pure probability. We ought to consider practical nuances like the tendency to randomly mash keys that are closer together rather than assume a uniform distribution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

And coffee breaks... or banana breaks... and unions!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Who are you, who is so wise in the ways of science?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›