Monkeys on typewriters: and other things I learned in Statistics 101
Billy Newsom
I looked at Deja Furfu for mentions of this topic -- both in AFU and AUE
-- nada. When did "monkey on a typewriter" become a metaphor for the
law of probability?
I've heard statements to the effect that "given 10 million monkeys
typing on typewriters for 24 hours a day, it will take them 10 million
years to eventually type the [insert longish document like the
Gettysberg Address or the US Constitution]."
I've also sighted monkey-typers in respect to macro evolution, DES
encryption, cosmology, data storage capacity, and casino odds.
The responses, equally mundane, go something like:
Are you personally going to do the typing?
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Sure, but what is the MTBF for the typewriters?
Billy "no monkeys were harmed in the typing of this post, however it
took 34 of them 723 years to do so" Newsom
Michael C. Herman
Billy Newsom wrote in message <35709CFA...@motherboards.org>...
Please do not harm any monkeys, but you should give your statistician
some serious grief. I don't think they could do it in only 10 million
years. Given the simple "Once upon a time", with 17 letters, would take 10
million monkeys 1365 million years, at 5 characters pers second, if upper
and lower case didn't count, and they had a 27 character keyboard (letters
plus space) to work with.
These statistics are interesting, but I think that they might be a good
argument for showing that language development is not a random adventure.
Initial sounds may be random, but the eventual construction of these into
words, statements, and written concepts is a highly structured endeavor.
Each language has its own combinations of the rules for generating words and
statements, as well as its own primitives. As languages mature, the
structure may be simplified, or changed, but it is still there. Only by
using a structured approach could the monkeys manage to do things any
faster.
Just who is supposed to feed and clean up after these critters anyway?
Kurt Foster
In <35709CFA...@motherboards.org>, Billy Newsom said:
. I looked at Deja Furfu for mentions of this topic -- both in AFU and AUE
. -- nada. When did "monkey on a typewriter" become a metaphor for the
. law of probability?
.
I'm not sure when monkeys and typwriters came into it, but the basic
idea precedes typwriters. A curious device for generating all knowledge is
described in the visit to the Grand Academy in Lagado in the Land of
Laputa, in "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. The Academy is Swift's
satire of the British Royal Society.
The original idea for such a device is attributed to the 13th-century
Spanish philosopher and alchemist Raymond Lully.
The "monkeys and typwriters" proposition was already well known by 1940,
because it was the basis for the story "Inflexible Logic" by Russell
Maloney, copyrighted by THE NEW YORKER Magazine in 1940 (copyright
renewed in 1968).
JayBob
Working in military software development, we always prepared for something
we called 'chimping on the keyboard'. This was when testers used their
elbows, fists, foreheads, etc. on the keyboard to try to get the machine to
lock up or otherwise misbehave.
> >I've heard statements to the effect that "given 10 million monkeys
> >typing on typewriters for 24 hours a day, it will take them 10 million
> >years to eventually type the [insert longish document like the
> >Gettysberg Address or the US Constitution]."
> >
lee...@kettering.edu
There is a small, very obscurely documented, piece of memory in the bowels
of the MacOS called "Monkey Lives". When set to 1, it gives the general
effect of a monkey sitting at the computer doing all sorts of random
things. It's not used now because Macs run multiple programs and have
hard drives with lots of data that could be seriously damaged. It was for
software testing and was a good idea for a floppy-drive-only,
single-tasking system.
Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
Paul "'Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romek' Damn, so close" Lee
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On 31 May 1998 04:38:37 GMT, kfo...@rmi.net (Kurt Foster)
wrote:>
> I'm not sure when monkeys and typwriters came into it, but the basic
>idea precedes typwriters. A curious device for generating all knowledge is
>described in the visit to the Grand Academy in Lagado in the Land of
>Laputa, in "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. The Academy is Swift's
>satire of the British Royal Society.
> The original idea for such a device is attributed to the 13th-century
>Spanish philosopher and alchemist Raymond Lully.
> The "monkeys and typwriters" proposition was already well known by 1940,
>because it was the basis for the story "Inflexible Logic" by Russell
>Maloney, copyrighted by THE NEW YORKER Magazine in 1940 (copyright
>renewed in 1968).
Interesting!
The "copyright renewed" bit is too. What limitations are there
on such renewals? May a holder of the copyright (given that such
things pass into estates which can involve trusts) seek extension
for ever? It seems unlikely but....
Charles Petzold
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in article
<3570fa58...@news.bctel.ca>...
<snip>
>
> The "copyright renewed" bit is too. What limitations are there
> on such renewals? May a holder of the copyright (given that such
> things pass into estates which can involve trusts) seek extension
> for ever? It seems unlikely but....
>
At the time. a copyright in the USA lasted 28 years, with a possible
renewal of 28 years. Currently, copyright in many countries (including the
USA) is the life of the author plus N years, where N is usually 50 or 70
(depending on the country). It's much more complex than this, of course.
deke.sp...@generous.net
On Sun, 31 May 1998 06:36:58 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>On 31 May 1998 04:38:37 GMT, kfo...@rmi.net (Kurt Foster)
>wrote:>
>
>
>> I'm not sure when monkeys and typwriters came into it, but the basic
>>idea precedes typwriters. A curious device for generating all knowledge is
>>described in the visit to the Grand Academy in Lagado in the Land of
>>Laputa, in "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. The Academy is Swift's
>>satire of the British Royal Society.
>> The original idea for such a device is attributed to the 13th-century
>>Spanish philosopher and alchemist Raymond Lully.
>> The "monkeys and typwriters" proposition was already well known by 1940,
>>because it was the basis for the story "Inflexible Logic" by Russell
>>Maloney, copyrighted by THE NEW YORKER Magazine in 1940 (copyright
>>renewed in 1968).
>Interesting!
>The "copyright renewed" bit is too. What limitations are there
>on such renewals? May a holder of the copyright (given that such
>things pass into estates which can involve trusts) seek extension
>for ever? It seems unlikely but....
The law that was in effect in 1940 allowed a 28-year copyright period, and one
renewal. That means anything older than 56 years *should* be in the public
domain, but then again, perhaps it's not.
They changed the law a few years ago to comply with the Berne Convention, and
copyright now lasts for the life of the original author plus a certain number of
years (50 perhaps? I can't remember), or 100 years for "works for hire".
I do not know whether the new law applies to old works that had not yet fallen
into public domain.
-------------------------------------------------
A size-friendly community for romance
Join our discussion mailing list at
http://generous.net/list/list.shtml
-------------------------------------------------
Or chat with us on IRC - DALnet channel #GenerousSingles
Graeme Thomas
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980531022334.10960A-
100...@nova.kettering.edu>, lee...@kettering.edu writes
>Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
>monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
>write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
random one of them would type out the complete works of Shakespere as
soon as it could be typed.
>Paul "'Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romek' Damn, so close" Lee
In the short story I read on the subject, the monkey had completed the
playes, but failed on the last poem because of a faulty typewriter. The
last line now reads "Damn'd machine! The gggg is stick'd".
--
Graeme Thomas
Roger Redding
Billy Newsom <webm...@motherboards.org> wrote:
>I looked at Deja Furfu for mentions of this topic -- both in AFU and AUE
>-- nada. When did "monkey on a typewriter" become a metaphor for the
>law of probability?
>
>I've heard statements to the effect that "given 10 million monkeys
>typing on typewriters for 24 hours a day, it will take them 10 million
>years to eventually type the [insert longish document like the
>Gettysberg Address or the US Constitution]."
>
>I've also sighted monkey-typers in respect to macro evolution, DES
>encryption, cosmology, data storage capacity, and casino odds.
>
>The responses, equally mundane, go something like:
>Are you personally going to do the typing?
>There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
>Sure, but what is the MTBF for the typewriters?
>
>Billy "no monkeys were harmed in the typing of this post, however it
>took 34 of them 723 years to do so" Newsom
"There is a special department of Hell for students of probability.
In this department there are many typewriters and many monkeys.
Every time a monkey walks on a typewriter, it types by chance
one of Shakespeare's sonnets."
"The Metaphysician's Nightmare" by Bertrand Russell,
from "The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell"
(Egner & Denonn, ed., 1961);
Seems to have originally appeared in "Nightmares of Eminent Persons",
Lane, 1954.
"Shall I compare thee to a ripe banana?"
Roger
Simon Slavin
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.98053...@nova.kettering.edu>,
<lee...@kettering.edu> wrote:
> Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
> monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
> write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
The traditional version of this is either 'all the works of Shakespeare'
or just _Hamlet_ by itself. Paul has the quantity of monkeys needed
correct: infinity. No attempt at quantifying the number of monkeys was
made. It's a demonstration of the powers of an infinity of something.
The statement is silly, anyway. A statistical claim like that would be
phrased more like "You would need <n> monkeys for <y> years to have a
50% chance of obtaining at least one copy of _Hamlet_.". That kind of
calculation never gives you a 100% chance of anything, no matter how
long you leave the monkeys.
Refs: "Fifty Million Monkeys," by Raymond F. Jones
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin | [It] contains "vegetable stabilizer"
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | which sounds ominous. How unstable
Junktrap deletes unread >4 UBEs/day.| are vegetables?
Check email address for junk-guard. | -- Jeff Za...@pipeline.com
Sten Thaning
In alt.folklore.urban Simon Slavin <slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost>
wrote:
:> Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
:> monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
:> write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
: The traditional version of this is either 'all the works of Shakespeare'
: or just _Hamlet_ by itself. Paul has the quantity of monkeys needed
: correct: infinity. No attempt at quantifying the number of monkeys was
: made. It's a demonstration of the powers of an infinity of something.
: The statement is silly, anyway. A statistical claim like that would be
: phrased more like "You would need <n> monkeys for <y> years to have a
: 50% chance of obtaining at least one copy of _Hamlet_.". That kind of
: calculation never gives you a 100% chance of anything, no matter how
: long you leave the monkeys.
It does, if the number is infinity. Provided that the monkeys types at
random, the complete works of Shakespeare would indeed be created in a
very short time. Infinity is a very large number.
That doesn't say anything about statistics, though.
- Sten "just a moderate amount of monkeys, myself" Thaning
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On Sun, 31 May 1998 15:28:19 GMT, deke.sp...@generous.net
wrote about the arcane processes of copyright:
>They changed the law a few years ago to comply with the Berne Convention, and
>copyright now lasts for the life of the original author plus a certain number of
>years (50 perhaps? I can't remember), or 100 years for "works for hire".
>
>I do not know whether the new law applies to old works that had not yet fallen
>into public domain.
>
Thank you deke, but it is still pretty much up in the air, is it
not?
Larry Phillips
lee...@kettering.edu wrote:
> Paul "'Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romek' Damn, so close" Lee
Bob Newhart, on one of his early albums, had a routine wherein he
pointed out the need for someone to check the monkeys' output. A fellow
calles out to another inspector, "Hey Harry! I think we have something
here. 'To be or not to be, that is the gezornenplat.'"
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty billion gigabits can do much. It even does windows.
-- Fred Pohl, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, 1980
Terry Nielsen
Billy Newsom wrote:
>
> I've heard statements to the effect that "given 10 million monkeys
> typing on typewriters for 24 hours a day, it will take them 10 million
The version I've always heard is "an infinite number of monkeys on an
infinite number of typewriters will eventually type the bible".
Aside from the comment on probability, I suppose there's a bit of
atheistic satire to that version as well.
There's a brilliant series of commercials running on a Canadian comedy
channel that shows an immense room filled with monkeys banging away at
ponderously big typewriters. The narrator says "An infinite number of
monkeys, at an infinite number of typewriters, will eventually define
all that is Canada". Later editions of the series focus in on what
individual monkeys have written, and illustrate them with satirical
vignettes that poke fun at Canadianism's.
Really well done.
--
-Terry Nielsen
Maple Ridge, B.C.
Canada
Ian Munro
Simon Slavin (slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost) wrote:
: The traditional version of this is either 'all the works of Shakespeare'
: or just _Hamlet_ by itself. Paul has the quantity of monkeys needed
: correct: infinity. No attempt at quantifying the number of monkeys was
: made. It's a demonstration of the powers of an infinity of something.
: The statement is silly, anyway. A statistical claim like that would be
: phrased more like "You would need <n> monkeys for <y> years to have a
: 50% chance of obtaining at least one copy of _Hamlet_.". That kind of
: calculation never gives you a 100% chance of anything, no matter how
: long you leave the monkeys.
Since there's no definitive version of _Hamlet_ (or, for that matter, many
of Shakespeare's other plays) for the monkeys to type towards, it's a
silly statement in other ways, too.
Ian "To be, or not to be, I there's the point" Munro
--
"I'm sorry - I'm not drunk enough to respond to this yet."--Jen Mullen
Jerry Bauer
As it happens, in finite time, a finite number of monkeys has managed
to evolve to the point where one of them actually composed "Hamlet".
This was before the monkeys had even invented typewriters.
rcasady
That's nice. Its not strictly accurate, scientifically, but that's fine
with me.
I just think you should have cross posted it to both sides of the Darwin/
creationism thing and annoyed them both.
R Casady
Joseph Michael Bay
Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> writes:
>The version I've always heard is "an infinite number of monkeys on an
>infinite number of typewriters will eventually type the bible".
If you have infinite monkeys, they will *immediately* type out not
only the bible, the Compleat Works of Shakespeare, the Compleat Wrks
of Shkspr., abridged, and the entire corpus of human literature, but
also everything that *could* be written. Thus you would have in that
infinite stack of monkeypaper a version of Halmet wherein the melancholy
Dane, acting impulsively, slays the King and takes the throne, marries
Ophelia, and resolves whatever issues he might have with his mother,
who then marries Horatio (who isn't gay in this version). More prosaically,
you would get, as fast as monkeys can type, a tremendous (some might
say infinite) number of versions with minor errers in spelling,
punctuation; etc, but substantially the same.
There is another theory that says this has already happened.
>There's a brilliant series of commercials running on a Canadian comedy
>channel that shows an immense room filled with monkeys banging away at
>ponderously big typewriters.
"What have you got, Milton?"
So, anyway, the big problem with using this as a method for writing
Shakespeare-quality plays is that you have to find that one monkey
out of an infinite swarm (herd? coven?) of them.
Joe "Laertes is at the gates, the rabble proclaim him king, and
fight like apes" Bay
--
Joe Bay Leland Stanford Junior University
Forensic Botany Laboratory, Stanford Department of Biology
Putting the "harm" in "Molecular Pharmacology" since 1998
"In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."
Donna Richoux
Simon Slavin <slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
> The statement is silly, anyway. A statistical claim like that would be
> phrased more like "You would need <n> monkeys for <y> years to have a
> 50% chance of obtaining at least one copy of _Hamlet_.". That kind of
> calculation never gives you a 100% chance of anything, no matter how
> long you leave the monkeys.
But you are talking about a finite number of years. Anyway, you can
chain a monkey to a typewriter but you can't make it type. Nor could you
stop it from repeating itself endlessly, or at least for as long as it
lives.
Best --- Donna Richoux
Simon R. Hughes
Thus Spake ba...@best.com (Jerry Bauer):
> As it happens, in finite time, a finite number of monkeys has managed
> to evolve to the point where one of them actually composed "Hamlet".
>
> This was before the monkeys had even invented typewriters.
One of the gods condescended himself, disguised his appearance (but
scarce could he hide his divine intellect) in the form a man, and
wrote those plays that had been conceived of before monkeys were
invented.
--
Simon R. Hughes
| Mail not sent directly to | http://skrik.home.ml.org |
| my reply address will be | |
| deleted without being read. | (Last updated 13th May 1998) |
Michael Cargal
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
That finite number of years turns out to be longer than the age of the
universe.
(The Left Rev.) John Konopak
lee...@kettering.edu wrote:
>
> On 31 May 1998, JayBob wrote:
>
> > Working in military software development, we always prepared for something
> > we called 'chimping on the keyboard'. This was when testers used their
> > elbows, fists, foreheads, etc. on the keyboard to try to get the machine to
> > lock up or otherwise misbehave.
> >
> > > >typing on typewriters for 24 hours a day, it will take them 10 million
> > > >Gettysberg Address or the US Constitution]."
> > > >
> > anyway?
>
> There is a small, very obscurely documented, piece of memory in the bowels
> of the MacOS called "Monkey Lives". When set to 1, it gives the general
> effect of a monkey sitting at the computer doing all sorts of random
> things. It's not used now because Macs run multiple programs and have
> hard drives with lots of data that could be seriously damaged. It was for
> software testing and was a good idea for a floppy-drive-only,
> single-tasking system.
>
> monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
> write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
>
Bob Newhart, the one of "buttoned down brain" fame did an hilarious riff
on this in the '50s. He posited the job of the guys hired to keep track.
John "To be or not to be, that is the..." Konopak
--
?_
Terry Nielsen
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> writes:
> So, anyway, the big problem with using this as a method for writing
> Shakespeare-quality plays is that you have to find that one monkey
> out of an infinite swarm (herd? coven?) of them.
Look for the one with an agent.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>One of the gods condescended himself, disguised his appearance (but
>scarce could he hide his divine intellect) in the form a man, and
>wrote those plays that had been conceived of before monkeys were
>invented.
>
Has the reflexive use of "condescend" been resurrected in modern
Britain?
This is the second time I've seen it used in this NG.
Keith Morrison
Terry Nielsen wrote:
> There's a brilliant series of commercials running on a Canadian comedy
> channel that shows an immense room filled with monkeys banging away at
> ponderously big typewriters. The narrator says "An infinite number of
> monkeys, at an infinite number of typewriters, will eventually define
> all that is Canada". Later editions of the series focus in on what
> individual monkeys have written, and illustrate them with satirical
> vignettes that poke fun at Canadianism's.
>
> Really well done.
It's running on almost all Canadian channels (although I haven't seen
them on CBC yet).
The one with the hockey executives is funny.
(For the uninformed: American standing in front of a boardroom, saying
"And then we put this glowing streak around the puck!" Shot from
outside the boardroom as said American goes flying through the doors
and down the hall.)
--
Keith "Eh?" Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Evan Kirshenbaum
jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) writes:
> Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> writes:
>
> >The version I've always heard is "an infinite number of monkeys on an
> >infinite number of typewriters will eventually type the bible".
>
> If you have infinite monkeys, they will *immediately* type out not
> only the bible, the Compleat Works of Shakespeare, the Compleat Wrks
> of Shkspr., abridged, and the entire corpus of human literature, but
> also everything that *could* be written. Thus you would have in that
> infinite stack of monkeypaper a version of Halmet wherein the melancholy
> Dane, acting impulsively, slays the King and takes the throne, marries
> Ophelia, and resolves whatever issues he might have with his mother,
> who then marries Horatio (who isn't gay in this version). More prosaically,
> you would get, as fast as monkeys can type, a tremendous (some might
> say infinite) number of versions with minor errers in spelling,
> punctuation; etc, but substantially the same.
Also, you'd spend eons looking for a book that had a single
recognizable word, let alone a sentence.
See Jorge Luis Borges, "The Library of Babel".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |to display clothes aren't hired for
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired
|for their resemblance to a
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger.
(650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan
David Mertz
jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote previously:
|>The version I've always heard is "an infinite number of monkeys on an
|>infinite number of typewriters will eventually type the bible".
|
|If you have infinite monkeys, they will *immediately* type out not
|only the bible, the Compleat Works of Shakespeare, the Compleat Wrks
|of Shkspr., abridged, and the entire corpus of human literature, but
|also everything that *could* be written.
Well... not *immediately*. If all the infinitely many monkeys start
typing at the same time, they will still each type at a finite rate.
Let's say they type 30wpm (not bad for monkeys). After one minute,
every string of 150 characters (5 char/word) will have been typed.
After an hour, every string of 9000 characters will have been typed. So
we'll probably be a few days before we have all of Shakespeare (how many
words did the bard write?).
Yours, Lulu...
--
quilty _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY:_/_/_/_/ v i
@ibm. _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises _/_/ s r
net _/_/ MAKERS OF CHAOS.... _/_/ i u
_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU_/_/_/_/_/ g s
O.Det
In article <+8tc1kKkX...@ibm.net>, qui...@ibm.net wrote:
>jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote previously:
>|>The version I've always heard is "an infinite number of monkeys on an
>|>infinite number of typewriters will eventually type the bible".
>|If you have infinite monkeys, they will *immediately* type out not
>|only the bible, the Compleat Works of Shakespeare, the Compleat Wrks
>|of Shkspr., abridged, and the entire corpus of human literature, but
>|also everything that *could* be written.
>Well... not *immediately*. If all the infinitely many monkeys start
>typing at the same time, they will still each type at a finite rate.
>Let's say they type 30wpm (not bad for monkeys). After one minute,
>every string of 150 characters (5 char/word) will have been typed.
>After an hour, every string of 9000 characters will have been typed. So
>we'll probably be a few days before we have all of Shakespeare (how many
>words did the bard write?).
You're all ignoring the fact that monkeys might (probably) have
some genetic propensity to type specific letters, numbers,
characters or rows more than others. It's *POSSIBLE* that,
after one keystroke typed by each of an infinate number of
monkeys, that you'd have no "M"s, for example. This would
preclude any of them starting off with the title-line for
"Macbeth", which would mean that we'd have to wait a while
to get all of Shakespeare.
I always heard "a million monkeys typing for a million years...
all the works of Shakespeare."
One of my favourite Dilbert cartoons:
Dilbert: Hey, Dogbert, what do you think this poem I wrote?
Dogbert: They say that a million monkeys typing for a million
years would product all the works of Shakespeare.
Dilbert: Ok... but what about my poem?
Dogbert: One monkey, ten minutes.
--
If you reply to the newsgroup, please don't e-mail, it confuses me.
To reply via e-mail, remove the spam-blocker word and dot.
I will not patronize any business which sends bulk unsolicited
commercial e-mail and/or which collects e-mail addresses from usenet.
Evan Kirshenbaum
s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes:
> On 01 Jun 1998 10:29:54 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >More prosaically,
> >> you would get, as fast as monkeys can type, a tremendous (some might
> >> say infinite) number of versions with minor errers
>
> Aw, that's so cute!
>
> in spelling,
> >> punctuation; etc, but substantially the same.
I don't usually comment on attribution, since I tend to expect
(unjustifiably) that people can count brackets, but since you edited
this such that it looks like at least the first line is mine, I'd like
to point out that I wrote none of this. Joseph Michael Bay
<jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU> gets credit for all of the quoted
material.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |and it didn't look anything like
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this.
| MST3K
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Michael Straight
On Sun, 31 May 1998, Simon Slavin wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.98053...@nova.kettering.edu>,
> <lee...@kettering.edu> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
> > monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
> > write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
>
> The traditional version of this is either 'all the works of Shakespeare'
> or just _Hamlet_ by itself. Paul has the quantity of monkeys needed
> correct: infinity. No attempt at quantifying the number of monkeys was
> made. It's a demonstration of the powers of an infinity of something.
No, no, the original version is that an infinite number of rednecks
shooting shotguns at an infinite number of billboards would eventually
produce all of Shakespeare's plays in Braille.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Joseph Michael Bay
s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes:
>On 01 Jun 1998 10:29:54 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
Hey, I wrote that!
>>More prosaically,
>>> you would get, as fast as monkeys can type, a tremendous (some might
>>> say infinite) number of versions with minor errers
>Aw, that's so cute!
> in spelling,
>>> punctuation; etc, but substantially the same.
Joe "stet" Bay
Simon R. Hughes
[this ng only]
Thus Spake a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca:
I assume that the other time was when I wouldn't condescend myself.
I like the usage, whether or not I should use it.
James Follett
In article <35709CFA...@motherboards.org>
webm...@motherboards.org "Billy Newsom" writes:
>I've heard statements to the effect that "given 10 million monkeys
>typing on typewriters for 24 hours a day, it will take them 10 million
>years to eventually type the [insert longish document like the
>Gettysberg Address or the US Constitution]."
Strange how these myths gain credence when a little thought will show
that what the monkeys have already typed will not influence what they're
going to type. There is no refining process as there is in evolution.
It's like that other myth about the population of China marching
four abreast past a fixed point will mean that the column will never
end. The theory being that the birthrate among those who have yet
to pass the point will keep the numbers up. A little mental calculation
will show that at a rate of four per second, 1/3rd of a million will
pass the point every 24-hours. Ten years will see the end of column
well out of sight.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Odd that existential thinking is so peculiarly European and is
largely unacceptable in America. It must've sank with the Titanic.
rcasady
Terry Nielsen wrote:
Term troop has been used for baboons
.
Casady
Charles Dillingham, Jr.
> > Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
> > monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
> > write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
>
> The traditional version of this is either 'all the works of Shakespeare'
> or just _Hamlet_ by itself. Paul has the quantity of monkeys needed
> correct: infinity. No attempt at quantifying the number of monkeys was
> made. It's a demonstration of the powers of an infinity of something.
>
> phrased more like "You would need <n> monkeys for <y> years to have a
> 50% chance of obtaining at least one copy of _Hamlet_.". That kind of
> calculation never gives you a 100% chance of anything, no matter how
> long you leave the monkeys.
>
Well ... actually, no. For any positive integer n, if you let
n monkeys type for an *indefinitely long* period of time, they will
eventually come up with the compete works of Shakespeare. In other
words, as y approaches "infinity", the probability of obtaining a
copy of _Hamlet_, or whatever, approaches 1.
You do not need an infinite number of monkeys to do the trick.
The concept of an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite
amount of time is meaningless. There are no actual infinities,
there are only potential infinities.
Larry Phillips
Keith Morrison wrote:
> The one with the hockey executives is funny.
>
> (For the uninformed: American standing in front of a boardroom, saying
> "And then we put this glowing streak around the puck!" Shot from
> outside the boardroom as said American goes flying through the doors
> and down the hall.)
Gee, if you're going to tell them it's funny, you might as well tell
them why.
The American executive, as he flies through the doors, is trailing a
blue streak.
Larry Phillips
James Follett wrote:
> It's like that other myth about the population of China marching
> four abreast past a fixed point will mean that the column will never
> end. The theory being that the birthrate among those who have yet
> to pass the point will keep the numbers up. A little mental
> calculation will show that at a rate of four per second, 1/3rd of a
> million will pass the point every 24-hours. Ten years will see the
> end of column well out of sight.
Not to mention the drastic fall in the birth rate due to the extreme
difficulty of reproducing while marching.
Terry Nielsen
Keith Morrison wrote:
>
> Terry Nielsen wrote:
>
> It's running on almost all Canadian channels (although I haven't seen
> them on CBC yet).
>
> The one with the hockey executives is funny.
For me the classic is still the one where the space guy lands on a
planet somewhere. He is surrounded by aliens who are about to nuke him,
but they all of a sudden drop their guns and start jumping for joy when
he turns and they see a Canadian flag on his back pack.
Terry Nielsen
O.Det wrote:
> You're all ignoring the fact that monkeys might (probably) have
> some genetic propensity to type specific letters, numbers,
> characters or rows more than others. It's *POSSIBLE* that,
> after one keystroke typed by each of an infinate number of
> monkeys, that you'd have no "M"s, for example. This would
> preclude any of them starting off with the title-line for
> "Macbeth", which would mean that we'd have to wait a while
> to get all of Shakespeare.
>
> I always heard "a million monkeys typing for a million years...
> all the works of Shakespeare."
To me the whole point of the saying is to illustrate a point of
probability. It's what happens when random selection meets infinite
sampling.
The monkeys are merely vehicles for the random selection part. You
could just as well say that "an infinite number of cows in an infinite
number of fields will eventually drop cow pies in a pattern that spells
out Stuart Angus [1]" The key point is random action by something that
is not applying a thought process that influences the outcome towards
the stated goal.
One monkey at the keyboard would have a high probability of typing
gibberish, and even extending it to thousands would likely produce the
same results. But that is because we are only looking at a small
sample. The higher the number of monkeys, the larger the number of
samples we have, and therefore the higher the probability of reaching
the goal. But we only reach a 100% chance of success when we have an
infinite number of samples (or monkeys as the case may be.)
To me the saying just doesn't make sense if it's only a million...you
still don't have a certitude of them typing out Shakespeare or
whatever. A good probability perhaps, but not a certainty.
Now you do raise a point though about possible propensities to type
certain letters (perhaps those within a certain reach). This would
definitely screw things up as it takes out the randomness factor.
Perhaps it would be better to switch to the cow pie analogy since as far
as I know cows don't give a damn where they plop those things.
[1] TWIAVBP- Stuart Angus = A US chain of steak restaurants.
Bill Bedford
Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> writes:
>
> >The version I've always heard is "an infinite number of monkeys on an
> >infinite number of typewriters will eventually type the bible".
>
> If you have infinite monkeys, they will *immediately* type out not
> only the bible, the Compleat Works of Shakespeare, the Compleat Wrks
> of Shkspr., abridged, and the entire corpus of human literature, but
> also everything that *could* be written. Thus you would have in that
> infinite stack of monkeypaper a version of Halmet wherein the melancholy
> Dane, acting impulsively, slays the King and takes the throne, marries
> Ophelia, and resolves whatever issues he might have with his mother,
> who then marries Horatio (who isn't gay in this version). More prosaically,
> you would get, as fast as monkeys can type, a tremendous (some might
> say infinite) number of versions with minor errers in spelling,
> punctuation; etc, but substantially the same.
>
> There is another theory that says this has already happened.
>
There's another that says the monkeys will refuse to type until someone
puts the letters on the keyboard in the right order.
--
Empty Sig
To confound the clueless
John Goodwin
>Thus Spake ba...@best.com (Jerry Bauer):
>
>> As it happens, in finite time, a finite number of monkeys has managed
>> to evolve to the point where one of them actually composed "Hamlet".
>>
>> This was before the monkeys had even invented typewriters.
>
>One of the gods condescended himself, disguised his appearance (but
>scarce could he hide his divine intellect) in the form a man, and
>wrote those plays that had been conceived of before monkeys were
>invented.
>
Next time he was bored, he appeared as Bach.
Then the devil got wise to his tricks and gave us windoze and
mcdonalds
JG
David Hatunen
In article <3572C9...@ou.edu>,
(The Left Rev.) John Konopak <jkonopa...@ou.edu> wrote:
>lee...@kettering.edu wrote:
>> Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
>> monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
>> write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
>Bob Newhart, the one of "buttoned down brain" fame did an hilarious riff
>on this in the '50s. He posited the job of the guys hired to keep track.
The David Ives play, 'All in the Timing', has three of the monkeys
conversing while sitting at typewriters. Pretty funny. Whole play
is funny (if 'play' is the proper word). This is the show that has
Leon Trotsky discussing the fact that he has an axe stuck in his
head.
--
*********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@wco.com) ************
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
******* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *******
David Mertz
ja...@marage.demon.co.uk (James Follett) wrote previously:
|It's like that other myth about the population of China marching
|four abreast past a fixed point will mean that the column will never
|end. The theory being that the birthrate among those who have yet
|to pass the point will keep the numbers up. A little mental calculation
|will show that at a rate of four per second, 1/3rd of a million will
|pass the point every 24-hours. Ten years will see the end of column
|well out of sight.
Have them walk a little slower (and/or in single file), and we seem to
be in the ballpark. It's a strange image either way... which I had not
seen before.
James Finister
I guess an infinite number of monkeys over an infinite period of time would
also reproduce all the messages in this thread. Spooky.
David Hatunen
In article <#vZvhAhj...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
James Finister <fini...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I guess an infinite number of monkeys over an infinite period of
>time would also reproduce all the messages in this thread. Spooky.
What's even spookier is that they will frequently reproduce
messages that *will* be posted. Complete with headers.
Dave "I knew you were going to say that" Hatunen
Michael Hardy
Billy Newsom (webm...@motherboards.org) wrote:
> I looked at Deja Furfu for mentions of this topic -- both in AFU and AUE
> -- nada. When did "monkey on a typewriter" become a metaphor for the
> law of probability?
It's from one of Emile Borel's books on probability,
published in about 1910.
Mike Hardy
--
Michael Hardy
ha...@math.unc.edu
http://www.math.unc.edu/~hardy
Evan Kirshenbaum
Terry Nielsen <tnie...@rogers.wave.ca> writes:
> O.Det wrote:
> > I always heard "a million monkeys typing for a million years...
> > all the works of Shakespeare."
>
[snip]
> To me the saying just doesn't make sense if it's only a million...you
> still don't have a certitude of them typing out Shakespeare or
> whatever. A good probability perhaps, but not a certainty.
Actually, you don't get a "good probability". For a problem like
this, the difference between one and a million is insignificant. The
difference between one and "if all of the particles in the universe
were replaced by monkeys at typewriters" is insignificant. Ditto "a
day", "a million years", and "typing a million words a minute since
the universe was formed".
The number you need is what the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls
"Vast" (capital "V"), for "vastly more than astronomical". The
inverse (which expresses probability) is "Vanishing". I find these
terms exceedingly useful when explaining why probabilistic algorithms
are reasonable. ("No, you're not guaranteed not to get a duplicate.
But if all of the particles in the universe had been generating keys a
billion times a second since the universe started, the odds that there
would have been a match between any two keys is approximately one in
ten to the 100th, ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion
trillion trillion trillion trillion.")
By the way, that example is a back-of-the-envelope calculation (based
on 1e80 particles and 15 billion years--I look it up when I need to be
sure I'm right) for a 1024-bit (128-byte) value. It's also the
probability of getting *any* duplicates. To get the odds of hitting a
*particular*, pre-chosen key, the odds would be roughly ten to the
200th against. For something as long as "all the works of
Shakespeare" or even _Hamlet_ (or even a single soliloquy from
_Hamlet_), you'd have to resort to a similar sort of argument to get
across the point of just how much *more* unlikely it would be.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |stops, and a train station is where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say
|about a workstation?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Brian Duguid
On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:56:48 +0100, Graeme Thomas
<gra...@graemet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980531022334.10960A-
>100...@nova.kettering.edu>, lee...@kettering.edu writes
>>Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
>>monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one would
>>write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
>If one had a collection of an infinite number of monkeys typing at
>random one of them would type out the complete works of Shakespere as
>soon as it could be typed.
Not quite: even if typing at random, there's nothing to prevent even
an infinite number of monkeys from all typing the same thing e.g.
"aaaaaaaaaa" for an infinite length of time.
Brian Duguid
brian....@iname.com www.hyperreal.org/~duguid/
Brian Duguid
On Sun, 31 May 1998 23:07:20 GMT, Sten Thaning <tha...@bahnhof.se>
wrote:
>It does, if the number is infinity. Provided that the monkeys types at
>random, the complete works of Shakespeare would indeed be created in a
>very short time. Infinity is a very large number.
>That doesn't say anything about statistics, though.
I disagree. Even an infinite universe could consist of an infinite
emptiness; there's nothing in probability theory to prevent ANY number
of monkeys all typing the same non-Shakespearean drivel, even if they
are typing at random.
Brian Duguid
brian....@iname.com www.hyperreal.org/~duguid/
Sten Thaning
In alt.usage.english Brian Duguid <brian....@iname.com> wrote:
:>It does, if the number is infinity. Provided that the monkeys types at
:>random, the complete works of Shakespeare would indeed be created in a
:>very short time. Infinity is a very large number.
: I disagree. Even an infinite universe could consist of an infinite
: emptiness;
True, but the universe in question was not empty - it had an infinite
number of monkeys in it.
: there's nothing in probability theory to prevent ANY number
: of monkeys all typing the same non-Shakespearean drivel, even if they
: are typing at random.
If I recall my math correctly, it is. When you have an infinite number
of random strings, then some (in fact, infinitely many) of them will
contain *any* strings of characters.
Note that this is based on the randomness of the strings.
- Sten Thaning
David Hatunen
David Hatunen
In article <Iolc1.8$Mx1.717522@dummy>,
Sten Thaning <tha...@bahnhof.se> wrote:
>It does, if the number is infinity. Provided that the monkeys
>types at random, the complete works of Shakespeare would indeed be
>created in a very short time. Infinity is a very large number.
>That doesn't say anything about statistics, though.
Infinity is NOT 'a very large number'. It is, however, a
transfinite number.
O.Det
In article <6l1dsa$6u5$4...@news.ncal.verio.com>, hatunen@shell. (David
Hatunen) wrote:
>In article <#vZvhAhj...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
>James Finister <fini...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>I guess an infinite number of monkeys over an infinite period of
>>time would also reproduce all the messages in this thread. Spooky.
>
>What's even spookier is that they will frequently reproduce
>messages that *will* be posted. Complete with headers.
>
>Dave "I knew you were going to say that" Hatunen
You remind me of the ads for psychics, around here:
"Come in, I've been expecting you..."
Now how the hell could they've known?!?!
David Hatunen
In article <olie-02069...@olivte5.apple.com>,
O.Det <ol...@DELETESPAM.odet.net> wrote:
>In article <6l1dsa$6u5$4...@news.ncal.verio.com>, hatunen@shell. (David
>Hatunen) wrote:
>
>>In article <#vZvhAhj...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
>>James Finister <fini...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>I guess an infinite number of monkeys over an infinite period of
>>>time would also reproduce all the messages in this thread. Spooky.
>>
>>What's even spookier is that they will frequently reproduce
>>messages that *will* be posted. Complete with headers.
>>
>>Dave "I knew you were going to say that" Hatunen
>
> You remind me of the ads for psychics, around here:
>
> "Come in, I've been expecting you..."
>
> Now how the hell could they've known?!?!
Don't you think it odd that the Psychic Friends Network didn't know
it was going to go bankrupt?
Joseph Michael Bay
In the interest of science, I borrowed a Gibbon from the animal facility,
but it left the typewriter, preferring instead the mighty Wurlitzer.
Subsequent requests for primates resulted in the shipment of three
rhesus monkeys, a macaque, and an Anglican archbishop. A random sample
of their work, performed on EMACS running on a UNIX box, follows (an
anamolous instance of meta-x-insert-zippyism has been left in):
;oih;oihnraibew
gwaehgpiewangpi
32tp3o
ptn23p9tu4320 4tj q4pofman'sfirst323tsd\isobedience1236h90
tguj49gft- uj43gt
jugt9-
CHUBBY CHECKER just had a CHICKEN SANDWICH in DOWNTOWN DULUTH!
4tgujghweaioagwehiog'carcinomah3tio2htghighios
0w3gt
u43 qu0$#@hiohpi23@#^@!436hhappgoncbnopwermdidldewapghie
q-uy 0g
-[04 u
0-[oh4that@this22sol1dfl$#w0uldm3ltt#4w&r3s()lv3its3lphin2ad()0
arewhigo[w4egnawieog[nawieog[d
634icingofarmsendtheman321niogd
Joe "type like apes" Bay--
Markus Laker
texa...@neosoft.com (David Carson) wrote:
> If a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years could type a thousand
> lines of Shakespeare, how long would it take for five hundred monkeys to
> type five hundred lines?
A thousand years. Each monkey types one line of Shakespeare every
thousand years. Is this a trick question?
Markus
--
a.u.e FAQ and resources: http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~laker/aue/
Remove the 'skip this bit' bit of my email address to reply.
Billy Newsom
Michael Hardy wrote:
> Billy Newsom (webm...@motherboards.org) wrote:
> > I looked at Deja Furfu for mentions of this topic -- both in AFU and AUE
> > -- nada. When did "monkey on a typewriter" become a metaphor for the
> > law of probability?
>
> It's from one of Emile Borel's books on probability,
> published in about 1910.
>
> Mike Hardy
Hey, dammit, can't you see the thread!?!
No one else was answering my question. It's people like you who kill
threads.
Billy "If you have an infinite number of monkeys, then they will not fit
on the earth, nor even in the galaxy or the universe itself. So much
for infinity being any help." Newsom
Lon Stowell
Brian Duguid <brian....@iname.com> wrote:
>
>Not quite: even if typing at random, there's nothing to prevent even
>an infinite number of monkeys from all typing the same thing e.g.
>"aaaaaaaaaa" for an infinite length of time.
Two things will prevent this.
o Sooner or later, the "a" key will wear out.
o girl monkeys. or for a few, perhaps other boy monkeys.
[presumption that monkeys have better priorities than
usenet posters.]
Lon Stowell
>anamolous instance of meta-x-insert-zippyism has been left in):
>;oih;oihnraibew
>gwaehgpiewangpi
>32tp3o
>ptn23p9tu4320 4tj q4pofman'sfirst323tsd\isobedience1236h90
> tguj49gft- uj43gt
> jugt9-
>CHUBBY CHECKER just had a CHICKEN SANDWICH in DOWNTOWN DULUTH!
I give this a 7. You could have gotten a 9 or higher if
you had included snippets of Louie Louie, or any Bob Dylan
song.
PS. To the folks on alt.usage.english. Should this really
be xposted to your group, or are you as bored as we are?
Gwen Lenker
Lon Stowell wrote in message <6l233r$o...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>...
>Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>In the interest of science, I borrowed a Gibbon from the animal
facility,
>>of their work, performed on EMACS running on a UNIX box, follows (an
>>anamolous instance of meta-x-insert-zippyism has been left in):
>>;oih;oihnraibew
>>gwaehgpiewangpi
>>32tp3o
>>ptn23p9tu4320 4tj q4pofman'sfirst323tsd\isobedience1236h90
>> tguj49gft- uj43gt
>> jugt9-
>>CHUBBY CHECKER just had a CHICKEN SANDWICH in DOWNTOWN DULUTH!
>
> I give this a 7. You could have gotten a 9 or higher if
> you had included snippets of Louie Louie, or any Bob Dylan
> song.
I thought that's what it *was*!
> PS. To the folks on alt.usage.english. Should this really
> be xposted to your group, or are you as bored as we are?
I dunno. Do you AFUers want to follow the subthread I was about to
start on whether there ought to be a disambiguating comma in "Leland
Stanford Junior University"?
Mike Zorn
In <3573f1c8...@news.clara.net> brian....@iname.com (Brian Duguid) writes:
>On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:56:48 +0100, Graeme Thomas
><gra...@graemet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980531022334.10960A-
>>100...@nova.kettering.edu>, lee...@kettering.edu writes
>an infinite number of monkeys from all typing the same thing e.g.
>"aaaaaaaaaa" for an infinite length of time.
the first cut for Right Worshipful Editor of AUE could apply for the
monkey-proofing job?
Mike Zorn rigo...@kaiwan.com
Mike Zorn
In <3574f246...@news.clara.net> brian....@iname.com (Brian Duguid) writes:
>I disagree. Even an infinite universe could consist of an infinite
This raises a question totally unconnected with any group within
a thousand leagues of these 2: Suppose you had an infinte number of
infinitely small particles: how big a box would you need to hold them?
Mike Zorn rigo...@kaiwan.com
Mike Zorn
In <6l1n2r$dna$2...@news.ncal.verio.com> hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) writes:
>You seem to think infinity is simply a very large number...
Mike Zorn rigo...@kaiwan.com
deke.sp...@generous.net
On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 20:11:17 GMT, brian....@iname.com (Brian Duguid) wrote:
>On Sun, 31 May 1998 23:07:20 GMT, Sten Thaning <tha...@bahnhof.se>
>wrote:
>
>>It does, if the number is infinity. Provided that the monkeys types at
>>random, the complete works of Shakespeare would indeed be created in a
>>very short time. Infinity is a very large number.
>>That doesn't say anything about statistics, though.
>I disagree. Even an infinite universe could consist of an infinite
>emptiness; there's nothing in probability theory to prevent ANY number
>of monkeys all typing the same non-Shakespearean drivel, even if they
>are typing at random.
That is, indeed true of ANY number, but it is not true of infinity.
Sten was probably kidding when he said "Infinity is a very large number,"
although he may have merely been incorrect. There are, in fact, several
infinities. None of them are numbers.
And besides which, 7 cents a gallon is conderably more in dog years.
-------------------------------------------------
A size-friendly community for romance
Join our discussion mailing list at
http://generous.net/list/list.shtml
-------------------------------------------------
Or chat with us on IRC - DALnet channel #GenerousSingles
Terry Nielsen
Billy Newsom wrote:
>
> Billy "If you have an infinite number of monkeys, then they will not fit
> on the earth, nor even in the galaxy or the universe itself. So much
> for infinity being any help." Newsom
I hope your position is that the universe is finite, otherwise you are
arguing that an infinite number of monkeys wouldn't fit into an infinite
universe, which is an argument that could lead us down a path more
dangerous yet strangely mundane than monkeys on typewriters.
--
-Terry (*MY* monkey's up to Chapter 3 of War and Peace) Nielsen
Maple Ridge, B.C.
Canada
Bob Cunningham
>texa...@neosoft.com (David Carson) wrote:
>
>> If a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years could type a thousand
>> lines of Shakespeare, how long would it take for five hundred monkeys to
>> type five hundred lines?
>
>A thousand years. Each monkey types one line of Shakespeare every
>thousand years. Is this a trick question?
That answer works only if it has also been stipulated that each monkey
*would* type an equal number of lines of Shakespeare. As the question
is stated, there are no grounds for assuming that each monkey would type
one line.
The problem as stated has no numerical answer. The word 'could' means
that it's within the realm of possibility. There is no probability, let
alone certainty, stated that it would actually happen. It's entirely
accurate to say that a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years
*could* type a thousand lines of Shakespeare, and it's not contradictory
to follow that by saying that five hundred monkeys *could* type for five
million years without typing a single line of Shakespeare. There is no
basis at all for saying anything about how many lines of Shakespeare 500
monkeys *would* type in five hundred years.
As for a monkey living for five million years, once you assume that a
monkey can live for a thousand years how can you set any limit at all?
David Hatunen
In article <6l2dq1$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>I dunno. Do you AFUers want to follow the subthread I was about to
>start on whether there ought to be a disambiguating comma in "Leland
>Stanford Junior University"?
I thought it was a junior university...
Larry Phillips
James Finister wrote:
>
> I guess an infinite number of monkeys over an infinite period of time
> would also reproduce all the messages in this thread. Spooky.
And one just about like yours above, but with a few differences:
"I guess an infinite number of moneys over an infinite peridot of mine,
would also preproduce all the massages in this truffle. Spoofy."
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty billion gigabits can do much. It even does windows.
-- Fred Pohl, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, 1980
Duncan C. Slakko Richer
On 2 Jun 1998 20:24:59 GMT, hatunen@shell. (David Hatunen) wrote:
>>Not quite: even if typing at random, there's nothing to prevent even
>>an infinite number of monkeys from all typing the same thing e.g.
>>"aaaaaaaaaa" for an infinite length of time.
>
>You seem to think infinity is simply a very large number...
Which infinity are we talking about here? The infinity of the
integers or the infinity of the continuum? I know Cantor never
managed to diagonalise a monkey, but we could always just take the
monkeys apart and put them together again, using a finite number of
pieces, to convert each monkey into two monkeys of the same size as
the original monkey*.
*Banach and Tarski did some very spooky things.
Not to say that I disagree with David on this point.
Duncan "aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall" Richer
--
Slakko Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College, Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths)
Quote Free Zone since 1997
John Goodwin
On 2 Jun 1998 16:46:04 -0700, lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon
Stowell) wrote:
>Brian Duguid <brian....@iname.com> wrote:
>>
>>Not quite: even if typing at random, there's nothing to prevent even
>>an infinite number of monkeys from all typing the same thing e.g.
>>"aaaaaaaaaa" for an infinite length of time.
>
> Two things will prevent this.
>
> o Sooner or later, the "a" key will wear out.
>
> o girl monkeys. or for a few, perhaps other boy monkeys.
> [presumption that monkeys have better priorities than
> usenet posters.]
>
Why do you assume the monkeys doing the typing are boys?
JG
Ben Walsh
Billy Newsom wrote:
> No one else was answering my question. It's people like you who kill
> threads.
I thought that was N*zis?
ben "Hitler with your rhythm stick" w.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The man with the telephone - | ben walsh
Put him in custody." | benw at iona dot com
-- Judge Terence Finn | http://bounce.to/heretic
Brian J Goggin
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:42:43 +0100, Ben Walsh
<be...@iona.nospam.please.wereirish.com> wrote:
[...]
>ben "Hitler with your rhythm stick" w.
Not a blockhead.
bjg
pdraper
Mike Zorn wrote in message ...
>In <3574f246...@news.clara.net> brian....@iname.com (Brian Duguid)
writes:
>>I disagree. Even an infinite universe could consist of an infinite
>>emptiness; there's nothing in probability theory to prevent ANY number
> This raises a question totally unconnected with any group within
>a thousand leagues of these 2: Suppose you had an infinte number of
>infinitely small particles: how big a box would you need to hold them?
>
>Mike Zorn rigo...@kaiwan.com
This reminds me - did anyone ever find out how many angels could dance on
the head of a pin?
Paul Draper
pdr...@baig.co.uk
0171 369 2754
Andrew C Taubman
I'm going to disagree with you here. All the monkeys may just type the
letter A perpetually, and thus will never type Hamlet, even in an infinite
period.
Andrew "AAAAAAAAA" Taubman
--
Free will is worth what you paid for it
-----------------------------------------
Charles Dillingham, Jr. wrote in message <35735E...@pil.net>...
>> The statement is silly, anyway. A statistical claim like that would be
>> phrased more like "You would need <n> monkeys for <y> years to have a
>> 50% chance of obtaining at least one copy of _Hamlet_.". That kind of
>> calculation never gives you a 100% chance of anything, no matter how
>> long you leave the monkeys.
>>
>
>Well ... actually, no. For any positive integer n, if you let
>n monkeys type for an *indefinitely long* period of time, they will
>eventually come up with the compete works of Shakespeare. In other
>words, as y approaches "infinity", the probability of obtaining a
>copy of _Hamlet_, or whatever, approaches 1.
>
Andrew C Taubman
David Hatunen wrote in message <6l1n2r$dna$2...@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:56:48 +0100, Graeme Thomas
>>an infinite number of monkeys from all typing the same thing e.g.
>>"aaaaaaaaaa" for an infinite length of time.
>
>
Andrew ".. posting in an infinite thread ..." Taubman
Andrew C Taubman
Axe? I thought the weapon used to assassinate Trots was an ice-pick?
Andrew "I said ice-PACK, you fool! Arrgh!" Taubman
--
Free will is worth what you paid for it
-----------------------------------------
David Hatunen wrote in message <6l114t$4m5$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>In article <3572C9...@ou.edu>,
>(The Left Rev.) John Konopak <jkonopa...@ou.edu> wrote:
>>lee...@kettering.edu wrote:
>
>>> Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
>>> monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one
would
>>> write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
>
>>Bob Newhart, the one of "buttoned down brain" fame did an hilarious riff
>>on this in the '50s. He posited the job of the guys hired to keep track.
>
>The David Ives play, 'All in the Timing', has three of the monkeys
>conversing while sitting at typewriters. Pretty funny. Whole play
>is funny (if 'play' is the proper word). This is the show that has
>Leon Trotsky discussing the fact that he has an axe stuck in his
>head.
Murray Arnow
In article <35749...@gronk.provo.novell.com>, "Andrew C Taubman" <ataubman.Remo...@novell.AndThis.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I'm going to disagree with you here. All the monkeys may just type the
> letter A perpetually, and thus will never type Hamlet, even in an infinite
> period.
>
> Andrew "AAAAAAAAA" Taubman
What you are saying is that the monkeys aren't typing randomly. This ignores
the basic premise of the problem.
Murray "aeydl.ehceargfv btrlb" Arnow
Mark Schaefer
Apropos of nothing, but relevant to the monkeys and Shakespeare
discussion, has anyone ever heard Bob Newhart's classic routine on this
very topic? Sort of a day in the life of a monkey-watcher: "Hey, Charlie!
I think number 47's got somethin'! I think this is famous: 'To be or not
to be, that is the gzorninplat...'"
-- Mark A. Schaefer
"Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
on that very day their plans come to nothing." -- Psalm 146:3-4
Ben Walsh
Murray Arnow wrote:
> > I'm going to disagree with you here. All the monkeys may just type the
> > letter A perpetually, and thus will never type Hamlet, even in an infinite
> > period.
> > Andrew "AAAAAAAAA" Taubman
> What you are saying is that the monkeys aren't typing randomly. This ignores
> the basic premise of the problem.
No. The basic premise is the nature of infinity. An infinite number of
amoeba without typewriters would also produce an infinite number of
beautifully-bound copies of Shakespeare's works also.
ben "and Edward deVere's" w.
John Goodwin
>texa...@neosoft.com (David Carson) wrote:
>
>> If a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years could type a thousand
>> lines of Shakespeare, how long would it take for five hundred monkeys to
>> type five hundred lines?
>
>A thousand years. Each monkey types one line of Shakespeare every
>thousand years. Is this a trick question?
That depends on how you view the question.
I've already seen a post from the author stating that it was the
answer he wanted.
Whether your answer is correct depends on whether you thought the
question meant that the thousand monkeys could type any thosand lines
of Shakespeare between them, with any amount of gibberish
interspersed, or whether you took it to mean that one of the 1000 long
lived monkeys would come up with 1000 lines of Shakespeare in the
order he wrote it, without any interveneing rubbish.
In the first case your answer is correct.
In the second case it is wrong.
I think it is fair to say that it is a trick question because it has
two quite distinct answers, both of which are correct for a certain
interpretation of the question.
If that is not clear to anyone (because of my clumsy use of English),
try the following.
a) If I throw a coin once a second for X hours I can throw 1000
heads.
b) If I throw a coin once a second for X hours I can come up with an
unbroken sequence of 1000 heads.
Specify the time it would take to throw 500 coins as a fraction of X.
(In each case, we are talking about an average time.)
In case (a) the answer is X/2
In case (b) the answer is X/((2^500)/(2^1000)), which is a very small
fraction indeed.
JG
John Goodwin
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:36:28 -0000, "pdraper" <pdr...@baig.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>This reminds me - did anyone ever find out how many angels could dance on
>the head of a pin?
Yes, 53
Michele Tepper
Andrew C Taubman <ataubman.Remo...@novell.AndThis.com> wrote:
>Axe? I thought the weapon used to assassinate Trots was an ice-pick?
"A mountain climber's axe. *A mountain-climber's axe*! CAN'T I GET THAT
THROUGH YOUR SKULL?"
Michele "eventually, everything I post will be a quote" Tepper
--
Michele Tepper "If there's one thing worse than a dog-killer breaking
mte...@panix.com into your house, it's a dog-killer who uses gratuitous
apostrophes breaking into your house." -- Joe Bay
Visit the scenic AFU archives and FAQ! http://www.urbanlegends.com
Billy Newsom
Terry Nielsen wrote:
> Billy Newsom wrote:
> > Billy "If you have an infinite number of monkeys, then they will not fit
> > on the earth, nor even in the galaxy or the universe itself. So much
> > for infinity being any help." Newsom
>
> I hope your position is that the universe is finite, otherwise you are
> arguing that an infinite number of monkeys wouldn't fit into an infinite
> universe, which is an argument that could lead us down a path more
> dangerous yet strangely mundane than monkeys on typewriters.
Hmm, the universe I live in is certainly finite. How about you?
I've never heard of anyone in the last 50 years theorizing that our
universe is infinite in scope -- at least no one taken seriously by his
colleagues. My point was that no one is taking the case of "infinite
monkeys" seriously. If an infinite number of monkeys exists, then no
container could hold them -- which, by the way, includes an infinite
universe. The real case -- the one in which we live in a finite world
and finite universe -- makes infinite monkeying around quite humo(u)rous
in my estimation. I mean, it's damn bad enough with ten million of
them, the smell of them all, and the amount of food required. But when
the universe becomes a collection of monkeys, that's just goofy.
Billy "vows never to start a thread again" Newsom
Anno Siegel
Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote in alt.folklore.urban:
>So, anyway, the big problem with using this as a method for writing
>Shakespeare-quality plays is that you have to find that one monkey
>out of an infinite swarm (herd? coven?) of them.
Naww, you just gotta find the monkey who types the meta-document
that explains what all the others are typing.
Anno "piece of cake" Siegel
Kinetic
pdraper <pdr...@baig.co.uk> wrote in article <6l3d81$l66@news5-
> This reminds me - did anyone ever find out how many angels could dance on
> the head of a pin?
Angels can't dance - that's why they have wings.
Kinetic
deke.sp...@generous.net wrote in article
<35749ab1...@news.bright.net>...
> On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 20:11:17 GMT, brian....@iname.com (Brian Duguid)
wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 31 May 1998 23:07:20 GMT, Sten Thaning <tha...@bahnhof.se>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>It does, if the number is infinity. Provided that the monkeys types at
> >>random, the complete works of Shakespeare would indeed be created in a
> >>very short time. Infinity is a very large number.
> >>That doesn't say anything about statistics, though.
>
> >I disagree. Even an infinite universe could consist of an infinite
> >emptiness; there's nothing in probability theory to prevent ANY number
> >of monkeys all typing the same non-Shakespearean drivel, even if they
> >are typing at random.
>
> That is, indeed true of ANY number, but it is not true of infinity.
Although unlikely (because the monkeys cause a random variable), it is
possible that an infinite number of monkeys would type everything but
Shakespeare. Besides, I believe monkeys are highly aggressive and sexual,
so I'm not sure they'd type at all.
Kinetic
> >In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.980531022334.10960A-
> >100...@nova.kettering.edu>, lee...@kettering.edu writes
> >>Oh, and the version I heard was that if you put an infinite number of
> >>monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters eventually one
would
> >>write the compiled works of Shakespeare.
This brings up another theoretical question. If one of an infinite amount
of monkeys typed the complete works of Shakespeare, would anyone notice?
Curtis Cameron
Billy Newsom wrote:
>My point was that no one is taking the case of "infinite
>monkeys" seriously. If an infinite number of monkeys exists, then no
>container could hold them -- which, by the way, includes an infinite
>universe.
OK, the universe is finite. This we agree on. But since we're already
toying with the idea of an infinite universe, what if each of an
infinite number of galaxies had just one planet with a single colony
of monkeys, who support just one monkey with a typewriter?
Does this not describe an infinite number of monkeys, and an adequate
support system?
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
Duncan C. Slakko Richer
>I'm going to disagree with you here. All the monkeys may just type the
>letter A perpetually, and thus will never type Hamlet, even in an infinite
>period.
>
>Andrew "AAAAAAAAA" Taubman
Let's just go over the assumptions of the monkey model [1].
(1) Number of monkeys: Countably Infinite. (Diagonalising monkeys is
painful).
(2) Monkey behaviour: In some fixed time period (e.g. 1 second), each
monkey types one key from the keyboard, chosen equiprobably.
(3) The case of letters is ignored (so we needn't worry about shift).
(3) is just a simplification - if you want you can add an additional
random variable to determine whether or not the monkey has hit the
shift lock key. It won't make any real difference.
Now, because you have a countably infinite number of monkeys, the
probability, after k seconds, some given string of k typewriter
characters has not been produced by ANY monkey is
(1 - P(random string is the one you want)) raised to the power of the
number of monkeys. Hence, as we have an infinite number of monkeys,
said probability is 0. Not "close to zero", not "approximately zero",
but, because there are infinitely many monkeys, 0. Plain and simple.
Hence, after k seconds, there is at least one monkey (in fact, by a
similar argument, an infinite number of monkeys) whose typewriters
show the string you want.
Hence, if the complete works of Shakespeare use N characters, then
after N seconds (assuming here each monkey types one character per
second - hey they're semi-trained monkeys, alright?) an infinite
number of them will have typed the complete works of Shakespeare.
HTH.
[1] You have to admit, IJLS "monkey model".
Duncan "not the time for gratuitous monkeying around lines" Richer
--
Slakko Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College, Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Mathematics)
MonkeySig MonkeyDo - ScenexI:xxzqJerryqajhgoElainelkj in Monk's.
Michael Gerard Maranda
In article <3575035f....@news.demon.co.uk>,
John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2 Jun 1998 16:46:04 -0700, lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon
>Stowell) wrote:
>
>>Brian Duguid <brian....@iname.com> wrote:
>>>
<deletia>
>>
>> Two things will prevent this.
>>
>> o Sooner or later, the "a" key will wear out.
>>
>> o girl monkeys. or for a few, perhaps other boy monkeys.
>> [presumption that monkeys have better priorities than
>> usenet posters.]
>>
>Why do you assume the monkeys doing the typing are boys?
>
>JG
>
Why do you assume he assumed that the monkeys are boys?
(same question, different spin)
--
michael gerard maranda
mm017g {at} uhura {dot} cc {dot} rochester {dot} edu
Duncan C. Slakko Richer
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 15:19:13 +0100, Ben Walsh
<be...@iona.nospam.please.wereirish.com> wrote:
>Murray Arnow wrote:
>
>> > I'm going to disagree with you here. All the monkeys may just type the
>> > letter A perpetually, and thus will never type Hamlet, even in an infinite
>> > period.
>> > Andrew "AAAAAAAAA" Taubman
>
>> What you are saying is that the monkeys aren't typing randomly. This ignores
>> the basic premise of the problem.
>
>No. The basic premise is the nature of infinity. An infinite number of
>amoeba without typewriters would also produce an infinite number of
>beautifully-bound copies of Shakespeare's works also.
An infinite number of six-sided dice, each rolled an infinite number
of times, each bearing the numbers 1 through 6 and fairly weighted,
will never produce a single die which rolls 7.
How are your amoebas going to produce Shakespeare's works? Are they
going to move into the shape of the letters? That would work if you
could show that the amoebas were capable of representing letters
unambiguously with non-zero probability. Have fun with the q amoeba,
and especially the B.
Be careful to ensure that your infinity is not the only leg that you
stand on.
Duncan "for more about infinite ordinals, read Winning Ways" Richer
--
Slakko Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College, Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Mathematics)
MonkeySig MonkeyDo - trla hbest of times askljworst of times
Gwen Lenker
John Goodwin wrote in message <3575035f....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On 2 Jun 1998 16:46:04 -0700, lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon
>Stowell) wrote:
>
>> Two things will prevent this.
>>
>> o Sooner or later, the "a" key will wear out.
>>
>> o girl monkeys. or for a few, perhaps other boy monkeys.
>> [presumption that monkeys have better priorities than
>> usenet posters.]
>>
>Why do you assume the monkeys doing the typing are boys?
Because their job titles have been capriciously changed from "typist"
to "probability amplification technician".
Lon Stowell
John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why do you assume the monkeys doing the typing are boys?
In most primates, the females tend to have a bit more
common sense than the males, why do you ask?
John Goodwin
>David Hatunen wrote in message <6l1n2r$dna$2...@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>>On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:56:48 +0100, Graeme Thomas
>>>Not quite: even if typing at random, there's nothing to prevent even
>>>an infinite number of monkeys from all typing the same thing e.g.
>>>"aaaaaaaaaa" for an infinite length of time.
>>
>>You seem to think infinity is simply a very large number...
>>
>How do you figure that? Graeme's statement seems irreproachable to me.
>
If they were typing at random, they could not type the same thing for
an infinite amount of time.
They could type, say, "a"s for any finite number of keystrokes, but if
they typed an infinite number of "a"s, then they would be typing "a"s,
not at random.
JG
John Goodwin
>Murray Arnow wrote:
>
>> > I'm going to disagree with you here. All the monkeys may just type the
>> > letter A perpetually, and thus will never type Hamlet, even in an infinite
>> > period.
>> > Andrew "AAAAAAAAA" Taubman
Incorrect for the reason specified below.
****
****
>> What you are saying is that the monkeys aren't typing randomly. This ignores
>> the basic premise of the problem.
Correct
****
****
>No.
Incorrect
>The basic premise is the nature of infinity.
The basic premise includes the concept of randomness. You cannot
produce anything other than a list of "a"s, by typing the letter a
repeatedly.
****
****
>An infinite number of
>amoeba without typewriters would also produce an infinite number of
>beautifully-bound copies of Shakespeare's works also.
Correct
****
Of course, I could be wrong.
JG
Peter Buchwald
Billy Newsom wrote in message <35756173...@motherboards.org>...
>Terry Nielsen wrote:
>> Billy Newsom wrote:
>> > Billy "If you have an infinite number of monkeys, then they will not
fit
>> > on the earth, nor even in the galaxy or the universe itself. So much
>> > for infinity being any help." Newsom
>>
>> I hope your position is that the universe is finite, otherwise you are
>> arguing that an infinite number of monkeys wouldn't fit into an infinite
>> universe, which is an argument that could lead us down a path more
>colleagues. My point was that no one is taking the case of "infinite
>monkeys" seriously. If an infinite number of monkeys exists, then no
>container could hold them
I am not so sure about this. The set of all prime numbers is infinite, and
so is the set of all numbers, yet the set of all numbers contains the set of
all prime numbers, with quite a lot of space left over.
This is why everything which could possibly happen, won't, even if the
universe were infinite.
--
PAB
http://www.buchwald.dircon.co.uk/
David Hatunen
In article <35759...@newsread1.dircon.co.uk>,
Peter Buchwald <buch...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>I am not so sure about this. The set of all prime numbers is infinite, and
>so is the set of all numbers, yet the set of all numbers contains the set of
>all prime numbers, with quite a lot of space left over.
I believe the set of ALL numbers, including irrational, is larger
than the set of all primes, odds, or evens, which are the same size
as the set of all integers or rational numbers.
>This is why everything which could possibly happen, won't, even if the
>universe were infinite.
But is the universe Aleph-0 or Aleph-1?
John Goodwin
On 3 Jun 1998 17:13:57 GMT, mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Michael
Gerard Maranda) wrote:
>In article <3575035f....@news.demon.co.uk>,
>John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 2 Jun 1998 16:46:04 -0700, lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon
>>Stowell) wrote:
>>
>>>Brian Duguid <brian....@iname.com> wrote:
>>>>
>
><deletia>
>
>>>
>>> Two things will prevent this.
>>>
>>> o Sooner or later, the "a" key will wear out.
>>>
>>> o girl monkeys. or for a few, perhaps other boy monkeys.
>>> [presumption that monkeys have better priorities than
>>> usenet posters.]
>>>
>>Why do you assume the monkeys doing the typing are boys?
>>
>>JG
>>
>
>Why do you assume he assumed that the monkeys are boys?
>
>(same question, different spin)
>
Because unless other primates have a different hetro/homo sexual
ratio, it is deducible from the the second preventative.
JG
John Goodwin
>On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 15:19:13 +0100, Ben Walsh
><be...@iona.nospam.please.wereirish.com> wrote:
>
>>Murray Arnow wrote:
>>
>>> > I'm going to disagree with you here. All the monkeys may just type the
>>> > letter A perpetually, and thus will never type Hamlet, even in an infinite
>>> > period.
>>> > Andrew "AAAAAAAAA" Taubman
>>
>>> What you are saying is that the monkeys aren't typing randomly. This ignores
>>> the basic premise of the problem.
>>
>>No. The basic premise is the nature of infinity. An infinite number of
>>amoeba without typewriters would also produce an infinite number of
>>beautifully-bound copies of Shakespeare's works also.
>
>An infinite number of six-sided dice, each rolled an infinite number
>of times, each bearing the numbers 1 through 6 and fairly weighted,
>will never produce a single die which rolls 7.
>
>How are your amoebas going to produce Shakespeare's works? Are they
>going to move into the shape of the letters? That would work if you
>could show that the amoebas were capable of representing letters
>unambiguously with non-zero probability. Have fun with the q amoeba,
>and especially the B.
>
>Be careful to ensure that your infinity is not the only leg that you
>stand on.
>
Well, it's happened at least once with a finite number of amoeba
JG