by hackernj on 11/1/24, 8:25 AM with 158 comments
by tombert on 11/1/24, 4:07 PM
It's sort of like stating the runtime efficiency of a Bogosort; the runtime efficiency is unbounded. Theoretically any list could be sorted on the first run, but it could also just keep sorting in an unbounded fashion for forever, though given enough time (which could be tens of trillions of years or longer), it will eventually be sorted if we assume regular distribution of random numbers.
ETA:
Ok, I read through the actual paper, and it's clearly meant more as a joke, which I don't think was made clear in this article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277318632...
by Aardwolf on 11/1/24, 3:10 PM
Also, at least the article could have said what the actual probability is then? Are we talking 1e-500, 1e-1000000, 1 / googolplex, or what?
EDIT: of the above examples 1e-1000000 is the closest I think (in order of magnitude of exponent), based on something like 30^5000000 divided through some amount of years assuming ~5 characters per word. So perhaps "If every atom in the universe was a universe in itself" won't get us there, but recursively repeat that process a million times and we do get there
by netsharc on 11/1/24, 4:27 PM
> Shakespeare’s canon includes 884,647 words – none of them banana.
If this article (1) is accurate, Shakespeare never even knew what a banana is, and he never tried it, since he died ~2 decades before they came to England:
> England got its first glimpse of the banana when herbalist, botanist and merchant Thomas Johnson displayed a bunch in his shop in Holborn, in the City of London, on April 10, 1633.
(1) https://theconversation.com/the-day-bananas-made-their-briti...
by soco on 11/1/24, 9:39 AM
by creativenolo on 11/1/24, 12:53 PM
> working out that even if all the chimpanzees in the world were given the entire lifespan of the universe, they would “almost certainly” never
Who assumed the original adage had the constraint of the universe’s lifetime.
by chasd00 on 11/1/24, 4:26 PM
Edit: after walking my dogs, isn’t the probability of the full works of Shakespeare never being typed out also > 0? (I can’t believe I’m actually spending calories on this..)
by qarl on 11/1/24, 3:09 PM
by jackstraw14 on 11/1/24, 12:10 PM
it's all there regardless
by v8xi on 11/1/24, 3:55 PM
by umvi on 11/1/24, 4:50 PM
Of course, it's a few billion years scaled across >1 life-friendly planets (since it only has to happen on 1 of them), but still just seems like not enough monkeys and typewriters in the given timeframe to produce something as astonishingly complex as life, let alone Shakespeare.
by calibas on 11/1/24, 5:50 PM
That's an infinitely larger chance than 0!
by innagadadavida on 11/1/24, 4:22 PM
by dijksterhuis on 11/1/24, 8:29 AM
by The_Blade on 11/1/24, 9:55 AM
by jajko on 11/1/24, 10:37 AM
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
by thom on 11/1/24, 3:39 PM
by andrewstuart on 11/1/24, 9:13 AM
That’s the whole point.
by GuB-42 on 11/1/24, 5:19 PM
For that to happen again, a monkey has to evolve into an intelligent specie interested in human history, find the complete works of Shakespeare, and write it. It is more likely than using probabilistic arguments using letter frequencies, or actual monkeys[1].
[1] https://archive.org/details/NotesTowardsTheCompleteWorksOfSh...
by minkeymaniac on 11/1/24, 3:14 PM
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
by eth0up on 11/1/24, 5:04 PM
And while it may take an army of them, we know these creatures are at least capable, collectively, of operating the Daily Mail, which is still all pretty early given the time remaining.
My fingers are crossed and I still have hope
by ribcage on 11/1/24, 4:32 PM
by appden on 11/1/24, 5:33 PM
Seems to me like a flawed “study” if the baseline assumption is that chimpanzees would type randomly even when given lifespans through the heat death of the universe, which is estimated at 10^100 (googol) years!
by lindbergh on 11/1/24, 4:35 PM
by hombre_fatal on 11/1/24, 5:13 PM
by skybrian on 11/1/24, 4:24 PM
by superjan on 11/1/24, 5:09 PM
by nachox999 on 11/1/24, 3:20 PM
by anon291 on 11/1/24, 3:39 PM
The law of large numbers is still correct. Nowhere is there a requirement that the large numbers be smaller than the various physical constants of the universe.p
by nopelynopington on 11/1/24, 4:57 PM
by jjk166 on 11/1/24, 5:04 PM
( number of monkeys * typing rate in characters per second * 30^72 ) / 30^n
The authors plugged in 200,000 (=30^3.5) and 1, meaning their odds are 30^75.5 / 30^n = 30^(75.5-n)
For a string of less than 69 characters, the odds are fantastic. For a string of more than 82 characters the odds are abysmal. At 69 the odds of the substring existing are roughly equivalent to losing the lottery, and at 82 the odds are equivalent to winning the lottery.
Shakespeare's shortest sonnet, 126, is a string of 533 characters.
by Iwan-Zotow on 11/1/24, 5:08 PM
by th0masfrancis on 11/1/24, 3:33 PM
by Fricken on 11/1/24, 9:07 AM
In reality, however, I think if you had a system that feeds a monkey a treat every time it strikes a letter key that corresponds to the next letter in a Shakespere play displayed on a monitor, you would eventually have some Shakespeare typed out by a monkey.
One could also just have a monkey mash keys for a while, and then after removing all the unnecessary letters you'd be left with a Shakespearian play.
Or, with a group of monkeys and plenty of time one could use natural selection to evolve them into a literate species that could handle the task easily. This is the method currently in use for the typing of Shakespeare. It has already been done, many times over.