Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
71–80 of 164 posts
Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#72How long would it take a computer or set of computers to pick random characters and generate the complete work how long for 1 paragraph how long for 1 page how long for 1 chapter etc etc Does it get harder/slower by a factor? would be an interesting exercise
Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flawed point if it is used to justify the random speciation of evolution. If they can't type out shakespeare, how can evolution randomly yet correctly type out billions of base sequences of dna in just a cple mil yrs?
You're comparing chalk and cheese to an extent, a perfect copy of Shakespeare's work can exist in exactly one way but DNA isn't required to be copied perfectly, DNA can change without necessarily killing the organism or otherwise rendering it unable to reproduce. Additionally evolution is not a random process, while mutations are random the process by which the mutations are selected is not - it depends on whether th…
(selection is irrelevant here; we could even just model it as always-select-for-beneficial-mutation for extra graciousness).
Mind you, even if a beneficient mutation occurs, it is still not guaranteed to be passed onto the next generation. It would have to randomly occur over and over again.
I'm not confident that it's gonna be very convincingly in favour of the random mutation model.
Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#74Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#75Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#76How long would it take a computer or set of computers to pick random characters and generate the complete work how long for 1 paragraph how long for 1 page how long for 1 chapter etc etc Does it get harder/slower by a factor? would be an interesting exercise
With multiple searchers it’s trickier, but we use the probability complement (probability of all possible events must add to 100%) to figure out the chances that our searchers all miss, and subtract that chance by 1. This gives the chance of at least one agent getting it right. Two searchers looks like 1-(27/28)^2 for the first char, and you can follow the same logic for any length string.
Your answer will heavily depend on your assumptions - how fast the computers guess, what they can guess, etc. But searching in parallel would speed things up dramatically. If you had like 100 computers searching simultaneously, 3 or 4 would likely get the first char right every time, giving you a big speed up on the problem.
Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#77The theorem is called "infinite monkey theorem". That means infinite amount of time. A googol years is not infinite, it's infinite times smaller than that. In an infinite amount of time they will write Shakespeare works (if they type randomly enough and not with some bias like never typing certain combinations of letters) Also, at least the article could have said what the actual probability is then? Are we talking 1…
The point is that there isn't enough time in the universe for all the random stuff to happen that scientists pin on random chance. The theorem was memorable, but a cop out.
Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#78In other news - Life expectancy of the universe is finite
Will the "universe" exist after that? Kind of a philosophical question, but nothing interesting will exist _in_ the universe.
Re: Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds
#79The theorem is called "infinite monkey theorem". That means infinite amount of time. A googol years is not infinite, it's infinite times smaller than that. In an infinite amount of time they will write Shakespeare works (if they type randomly enough and not with some bias like never typing certain combinations of letters) Also, at least the article could have said what the actual probability is then? Are we talking 1…
Yes, but the theorem is meant to explain what can happen in the universe over long time scales. The point is that there isn't enough time in the universe for all the random stuff to happen that scientists pin on random chance. The theorem was memorable, but a cop out.