What happens if they write the communist manifesto before any works of Shakespeare?
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
460 points (93.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
29851 readers
435 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not literal.
It's a way to explain that any result is possible.
Like, throw some matter/energy in any closed system, and eventually, everything and anything possible will happen on an infinite timeline.
So sure, 99.9999999999999999% are going to poop on it, but on an infinite scale, you'd get Shakespeare
Okay, but apes have already written the collected works of Shakespeare.
Well no. You can try to count every real number forever and you will miss infinitely many still. Some infinites are larger than others, hence I do not see any reason why "infinite time" would cover "every possibility happening". On the other hand, if you do have a mathematical proof you could refer to, I would be most grateful.
EDIT: To write out my example, let us consider a machine that picks a random number between 3 and 4 every second. Then there is every second a nonzero chance that this machine (assuming true and not pseudo randomness) will pick, say pi. The range of numbers picked constitute the image of a function from the whole numbers to the real numbers (up to isomporphism), which cannot be surjective. Hence there are numbers not picked even though there was a > 0 chance of picking them every second for an infinite time.
Then there is every second a nonzero chance that this machine (assuming true and not pseudo randomness) will pick, say pi.
No. The probability of picking any particular number from a uniform distribution is 0.
On the contrary, since the works of Shakespeare are a finite string over a finite alphabet (I can formalize this argument if you want), the probability of typing them out after some fixed large number of keystrokes is some nonzero number 𝑝. With 𝑛 monkeys, the probability that at least one will type out the works is 1 − (1 − 𝑝)ⁿ, which goes to 1 as 𝑛 → ∞.
Now, you are right that this does not mean that the works are guaranteed to be typed out. However, it has probability 1, so it’s mathematically “almost certain”.
I don't think I understand your example but I feel like people downvoting you without arguing the math is something that should be left to twitter and reddit.
Thanks. It was a bit poorly worded, but I do think the original statement is wrong and just wanted to sketch an idea of why.
I hear what you are saying and agree. I never took the monkey Shakespeare theory seriously. It sounded a bit too poppy and quite honestly the guy that told me was a douche and pronounced giblets wrong. But as a theory you could get anything in a long enough time span and infinite amount of resources. Why or how that matters? Well I just don't see it.
Is it pronounced like gif?
Of course I am not denying that anything possible could happen. That is contradictory to the assumption it was possible in the first place. What I am saying is just that not all that is possible will happen, even if given an infinite time to do so.
EDIT: Unfortunately, given a setup like this the math says monkey Shakespeare will almost surely happen due to there only being finite variations.
Oh I get you. I see it the same way. I saw it as an interesting thought experiment.
Even funnier in your example is that the chance of any real number ever being picked is infinitesimally small, instead of guaranteed.
Yep! Relatively speaking almost none of them will be picked. The same is also true even if one had a countable infinite amount of machines trying to pick these numbers.
load more comments
(5 replies)
A finite number of monkeys would almost certainly just destroy their finite number of typewriters long before they randomly bashed out anything coherent, let alone Shakespeare. Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters don't have that problem though. As long as it doesnt break the laws of physics it would eventually happen, no matter how unlikely it is. That's the whole point.
In fact it would happen in as fast a time as theoretically possible
This raises an interesting question: Do other primates even have the same anatomy to get carpal tunnel? It's just an inflammation of tissue in a very narrow part of the wrist that puts pressure on a nerve. Do monkies even have the same kind of tissues in the same narrow passage to get inflamed enough that it causes pressure on a nerve that gives mobility issues to their hands?
It's infinite monkeys over infinite time. Yeah, some would get carpel tunnel (an infinite number of them) and some would form labour unions (an infinite number of labour unions). There would be an infinite number of cults, and an infinite number of supreme leaders would rise. You'd have an infinite number of "it's almost Shakespeare but you got one character wrong", many more than complete Shakespeare works. And it would increase as you include more and more errors.
With an infinite amount of monkeys, this would start happening in the minimum amount of time it takes for any of that to happen. You don't even really need infinite time once you have infinite monkeys, but finite monkeys with infinite time are different because then you have a finite number of outcomes and extinction might arrive before they have a chance to achieve each one.
How can you get infinite monkeys to all stop writing?
“It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times… you stupid monkey!”
Reddit is basically prove that this theory is bullshit anyway.
There aren't infinite monkeys on reddit. There is Shaekspeare on reddit. Lemmy isn't any better.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Reddit is less creative than it is distributive. Terrible place for original content, but a reliable location to find reposts of trending material produced elsewhere.
If you're looking for a real "10,000 monkeys on typewriters" situation, you'd be better off trolling through Tumblr or DeviantArt or 4chan.
It was more of an attempt at a joke. But the comments on reddit are rather close to the infinite monkey situation. While you are absolutely right that 4chan might be even closer. But 4chan is too hardcore for me, so I kind of forgot about it.
the comments on reddit are rather close to the infinite monkey situation
Damn, I wish they were that creative. I feel like there's maybe 30 different predefined Reddit Comments that just get randomly spat out by a generator ever few minutes.
But 4chan is too hardcore for me, so I kind of forgot about it.
Fair. But nothing recreates the experience of a dozen chimps throwing shit at one another like 4chan.
I dnn't know, we might get this gem from the monkeys first "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times." I would consider that a win even more than the monkey's forming a very militant labor union.
I would think that monkey art, given a surplus of free time, would evolve at the pace of their own lived experiences and accumulated craft skills. Idk if we'd ever get Shakespeare, but we could very well get a more modern and ape-centric take on Planet of the Apes, Curious George, or Bedtime for Bonzo.
Always thought this was BS and Wikipedia confirms my assumption:
In 2002, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes crested macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon, England from May 1 to June 22, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website. Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages largely consisting of the letter "S", the lead male began striking the keyboard with a stone, and other monkeys followed by urinating and defecating on the machine.
They gave monkeys a computer. Instead of Shakespeare, the result was Twitter.
A rose by any other name…
Those monkeys wrote a better love story than Twilight
Too few monkeys
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's a thought exercise and a metaphor, not literal
You don't actually need infinite time if you have infinite monkeys with typewriters. If the typing is truly random, one of the moneys will type the complete works of Shakespeare on the first try. Or maybe infinitely many will, but then you start having to reason about different sizes of infinity.
This cracked me up. Thanks. I needed this.
Me hiring monkey pinkertons for my infinite monkey theorem based publishing house, "wanna bet?"
/s
👋✌️
We are what happens to the monkeys when they're done writing Shakespeare
It does make you wonder what monkeys given infinite time (and somehow being coerced into using typewriters) would evolve into.
In pretty sure it would involve a hierarchy based on which monkeys are best at beating other monkeys to death with typewriters.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Y'hear that America? Even monkeys don't have to rely on tips
I think they'd be more likely to dismantle and defecate all over the typewriters than they would be to do anything else with them.
I always interpreted it as, eventually they’ll evolve, and will birth their equivalent of Shakespeare. Paralleling our own evolution.
Paralleling our own evolution.
You mean when some rats gave our australopithecine ancestors typewriters in hopes that they would produce the great question of life, the universe, and everything?
Thank you for this
load more comments
(1 replies)
We're assuming spherical monkeys and unlimited tyranny
All us monkeys already managed to write the works of Shakespeare once, why do we want to do it again
view more: next ›