As long as the implementation still confirms to RFC 2795
That RFC is for infinite. This article discuses finite.
A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#12One can only wonder what can be faster - the monkeys would produce a work of Shakespeare or Google pays the fine of $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that the Russian court imposed on Google for blocking Russian state propaganda on Youtube. At least in case of monkey the monkeys can learn and improve from their previous output while Russia isn't even willing to.
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#13I really wish they had done an analysis of finite Planck-scale monkeys.
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#14> Given the expected time until the heat death of the universe, we demonstrate that the widely-accepted conclusion from the Infinite Monkeys Theorem is, in fact, misleading in our finite universe Maybe I'm missing something here, but wasn't the analogy used to describe the nature of infinity ? The paper is pretty cool, but it gives a weird correlation between infinity as a principle and the heat death of the universe…
I was also confused until I read the abstract. This is the FINITE Monkeys Theorem. >Here, we consider the Finite Monkeys Theorem and look at the probability of a given string being typed by one of a finite number of monkeys within a finite time allocation consistent with estimates for the lifespan of our universe. I misread finite as infinite multiple times.
Now I just feel infinitely silly. I didn't pay enough attention in the end but still seems like a cool mental excersize more than anything else!
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#15Ok, but what is the probability that a monkey types a string such that when the string is provided as input to a universal Turing machine that maximally compresses all written works except Shakespeare, the output of the machine is the works of Shakespeare?
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#16Have they read Shakespeare?
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#17> To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”.
I can see I have hardly been availing myself enough of the plethora of short phrase quality literature quoting opportunities.
"Indeed"
-- Master Shakespeare, The Passionate Pilgrim, Poem 20, Line 29, Word 6 [0]
[0] https://nosweatshakespeare.com/poems/the-passionate-pilgrim/
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#18> To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”. I can see I have hardly been availing myself enough of the plethora of short phrase quality literature quoting opportunities. "Indeed" -- Master Shakespeare, The Passionate Pilgrim, Poem 20, Line 29, Word 6 [0] [0] https://nosweatshakespeare.com/poems/the-passionate-pilgrim/
The art is in finding a line/sentence that consists of only the word in question, in other words a complete utterance. That’s the case for the “No”, but not for your “Indeed”.
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#19> To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”. I can see I have hardly been availing myself enough of the plethora of short phrase quality literature quoting opportunities. "Indeed" -- Master Shakespeare, The Passionate Pilgrim, Poem 20, Line 29, Word 6 [0] [0] https://nosweatshakespeare.com/poems/the-passionate-pilgrim/
The difference here is that “No” (actually “No!” in my text) is the entirety of Hamlet III.iii.87 without need to sample less than a line.
Re: A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem
#20> To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”. I can see I have hardly been availing myself enough of the plethora of short phrase quality literature quoting opportunities. "Indeed" -- Master Shakespeare, The Passionate Pilgrim, Poem 20, Line 29, Word 6 [0] [0] https://nosweatshakespeare.com/poems/the-passionate-pilgrim/
The difference here is that “No” (actually “No!” in my text) is the entirety of Hamlet III.iii.87 without need to sample less than a line.
I believe that might be a difference in degree, not really in kind.
And selecting (and documenting) a single word extraction was part of the light hearted point. I was careful not to include a period inside the quote. :)