Slashdot Mirror
Six Monkeys And An Old Saw
Sayten241 writes "They say that an infinite amount of monkeys typing at an infinite amount of typewriters will produce literature greater than Shakespeare. Well, it has been proven that six monkeys and one computer will produce a computer that has been smashed with a rock, urinated upon, and four pages worth of the letter 's.' The end of the article states that scientifically this does prove that monkeys are more complex than random generators."
Four pages of the letter s would probably be modern art if the right artist had done it... Still it won't take them too long to type /. will it
that it's possible to get research funds for just about anything.
I think I'm going to apply for a science grant. I'll investigate the global effects of a butterfly flapping it's wings in Syria. My hope is to finally prove Lorentz conjecture, while at the same time cash in on the imminent war in the region. I'll sell t-shirts with "I invaded Syria, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt with a butterfly on it".
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
I think the researchers actually went about this the wrong way. A computer is not a typewriter: there are important differences that I think would make a typewriter work better than a computer (for the purposes of producing random text anyways):
a) If you hold down a key on a typewriter, it doesn't fill 6 pages with that one character.
b) I would imagine that the mechanical action of the typewriter is more appealing to primates than silent techno-wizardry (more sensory feedback as a response to manipulating the typewriter)
c) While it might be neccesary to simplify the typewriter (think carriage returns), it's easier than simplifying and bomb-proofing a computer
d) and the list goes on...
What's next, putting a cat in a box to see if Schrodinger was right?
(and yeah, I probably spelt both "gedanken" and Schrodinger wrong. Sue me.)
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
What if they were given more simple tasks, like somthing for someone who can't see well, see if they can learn simple things, like using the mouse, clikcing buttons, etc, communicate them where they can understand things without reading it. In conclusion: I would have done a better experiment, and if they copy my idea and don't give me gobs of $$, They should contact me todo so :D preston at moderngeek dot com
The one thing that has always bothered me about this quote is that it's not necessarly true. The monkeys could just keep typing 's' all the time forever. Here's an example that I once read about in an astrophysics book, I found it quite interesting:
Assuming that the universe is infinitely big and there are an infinite number of planets, does there necessarly have to be a planet like Earth that exists.
Initially I thought that it makes sence that given an infiniately large universe, there has to be a planet like Earth, but this is not true. The example given to me was the set of odd numbers. This set is infinite, but no matter how hard you look in that set you'll never find the number 2.
I always think about that when someone says that give an infinite amount of time something will definately happen.
...Not exactly, it could mean that monkeys are more civilized than humans. Any creature can destroy something if given enough time, humans are savage enough to get the job done quicker.
Monkeys and other primates have been on this planet for a good long time, and humans a mere fraction of that time, and look what we've done in less time.
Primates aren't all the same crop. I'm not shure why they chose sulawesi crested macaques but I'd like to see how bonobo would have performed. Their behaviour is often described as particularly elaborate and are able to learn languages and make use of tools. Especially intriguing is that they require a lot of parental care before becoming independent individuals. Similarly to humans, these primates require long training to have a successful adult life and therefore maintain 'infant' traits for quite a time much like us, naked apes.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Yes these are valid points, except that you are talking about a specific set (even number set), having an infinite number of items (the actual even numbers). But in a truly infinite universe, there is an infinite number of sets with infinite items in each, so therefor you can and will find anything you can think of! And an infinite number of monkeys will keep typing 's' forever, but an equal infinite number will produce the works of Shakespeare in correct chronilogical order, over and over again, forever. Weird!
But, you forgot about the typewriters. Back to square one for you!
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Is Slashdot becoming another Fark? This doesn't seem to really be much "News for Nerds." Nor is it "Stuff that matters." Fark, to me, is just a casual, low level, "crazy people doing crazy things" story forum. Slashdot should be more refined, or at least relate to more technical things. Anyways, thats my flame.
This is a wonderful insight. However, I have always heard arguments like this applied not simply to the existence of planets like Earth, but further extended as proof of the existence of intelligent life elsewhere. I would like to restate your point, which is that given an infinitely large set of possible circumstances, it is not required that a particular set of possibilities exist, especially if these possibilities are excluded by the definition of the set. Therefore infinity alone is not sufficient evidence of anything existing. As proof, contemplate an infinite set of odd numbers. Infinite in length, yet containing only bounded instances! This is really a me too post, but I just love this argument, and I will think about it whenever someone invokes infinity as proof.
We're comparing the work of SIX monkeys with the potential work of ALL monkeys (forever never ending) and we can't see just how amazing the accomplishment of those Six was? Six monkeys as compared to infinite monkeys is pretty damned close to NO MONKEYS AT ALL!!! Wow! Those few monkeys probably came up with the monkey equivalent of the human Romance Novel. Shakespeare it is not, but a hell of a start for practically no monkeys at all. Someone should be funding a "Computers in Zoos and Rain Forests" initiative.
They mentioned that the lead monkey started bashing the computer with a rock as the monkey's first action with this computer. It's amazing how survial is encoded in everything like that...something foreign comes into a domain and fear is the first instinct brought upon it. You can expect that from a monkey, but humans have this reaction as well often. In a way it depresses me that we are not far from monkeys in this respect.
It should be noted I liked how the leader monkey was first to approach the computer...if only the worlds leaders would be the first in combat I'm sure we would have a lot less fighting.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
No, no, this isn't proof. We need to at least take another six monkeys and another computer and see if this happens again.
Although, I've always had the nagging suspicion that an infinite number of monkeys typing at an infinite number of typewriters would produce an infinite number of broken typewriters...
philcrissman.com.
Clearly the author has no concept of infinity.
Heck, give six Elizabethans quills and ink and they'll probably make a mess too. The point is that if one of the six managed to type even two characters, then an infinite number could probably write shakespeare.
More to the point, when dealing with infinities, even probabilistic modifiers like 'probably' are meaningless. If it's at all feasable, then one of an infinite number would do it, even if they had to evolve out of the trees, invent tragedy and comedy, conquer England, and live in London to do so.
Kevin Fox
Actually an infinite amount of planets just like earth exist in your example.
-Reid