<title_here - deleted due to porn ads>

[A_Son_of_God]

<comment_here>

 

[Harbal]

According to some, this theory is out the window.

Chimpanzees will never randomly type the complete works of Shakespeare

The infinite monkey theorem states that illiterate primates could write great literature with enough time, but the amount of time needed is much longer than the lifespan of the universe

www.newscientist.com

Oh well. Maybe we should invent another arrogant statement to claim absolute drivel and trick the dummies to lead them to their deaths.

The monkey thing isn't a theory, it's just a sort of thought experiment to illustrate the principle of probability and randomness. If you want drivel, just pick up your Bible.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

Isn't that the premise of the lotto?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

The monkey thing isn't a theory, it's just a sort of thought experiment to illustrate the principle of probability and randomness. If you want drivel, just pick up your Bible.

<comment_here>

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Isn't that the premise of the lotto?

<comment_here>

 

[Harbal]

Well, see. It's people like you that do what you just did. Thank you for demonstrating my statement on rude, arrogant know-nothings who worship men.

I don't worship anything, and you have obviously misunderstood the monkey/typewriter thing, so it seems that you are the know-nothing.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

The odds of winning the lotto approximately 1 in 14 million. Lotto can go weeks/months without being won.
Its completely random and morons play it.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

I don't worship anything, and you have obviously misunderstood the monkey/typewriter thing, so it seems that you are the know-nothing.

<comment_here>

 

[Harbal]

The odds of winning the lotto approximately 1 in 14 million. Lotto can go weeks/months without being won.
Its completely random and morons play it.

But you could significantly reduce those odds by buying an infinite number of tickets.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

The odds of winning the lotto approximately 1 in 14 million. Lotto can go weeks/months without being won.

<comment_here>

 

[Harbal]

Yeah, whatever. Reason yourself as much as you can mate. Thanks for replying though, as it can be scrutinised.

* I post an article, you post opinions.

* I address a topic, you address ridiculing the messenger.

Jump in the lake, peabrain. You're ignored here too.

I'm sorry, it's just that religious nuts bring out the worst in me.

 

[Kev45]

I have tried to wrap my head around it, but unfortunately the title of this thread has confused my poor lil noggin. For one, the pictured chimpanzee is an ape, not a monkey, and unfortunately the link is pay to join in order to view the complete 'article'. The aggressive tone of the first post by the author is extremely confusing as well, what's that all about?

Surely the odds are stacked against the chimpanzee anyway, and 'probably' deliberately so, an infinite number of chimpanzee's with an infinite amount of time, typing on an infinite typewriter, can not compete fairly with a finite universe, can they?

As a thought experiment it worked very well, now I don't even recall what day it is.

Happy monkeying guys.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

I have tried to wrap my head around it, but unfortunately the title of this thread has confused my poor lil noggin. For one, the pictured chimpanzee is an ape, not a monkey, and unfortunately the link is pay to join in order to view the complete 'article'. The aggressive tone of the first post by the author is extremely confusing as well, what's that all about?

Surely the odds are stacked against the chimpanzee anyway, and 'probably' deliberately so, an infinite number of chimpanzee's with an infinite amount of time, typing on an infinite typewriter, can not compete fairly with a finite universe, can they?

As a thought experiment it worked very well, now I don't even recall what day it is.

This is about evolution, you know that thing that pass your family by

Chimpanzee or ape, the quote satirical about mankind. They say humans have been around for 300,000 years, that's how long it taken William Shakespeare work to appear. Other greats took a bit longer like Justin Bieber.

Nothing to do with monkeys, Chimpanzee or apes.

 

[LongDistanceRunner]

Ahhh - imagine if they typed in all but the last letter out of a million correctly, and then fudged the last one? Then we'd have to wait another 78 quadrillion years for the next chance.

 

[Kev45]

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

I was obviously being too subtle.

Imagine presenting an argument on an open forum, citing a source that is hidden behind a paywall, and therefore inaccessible to both the OP and to the reader.

What is he arguing?

Typing "debunked" means sweet FA, explain why.

The reader can't access an "article" hidden behind a paywall and so has no context to what the "article" is actually saying anyway, and therefore the angry language of the OPs first post sets the tone instead.

Imagine getting even more angry when other people respond in kind, reacting by describing them as "arrogant" and a "peabrain".

After citing an "article" that is hidden behind a paywall that they didn't read.


I hope that was a bit clearer.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

I know its Fri 13th....but really?

 

[Kev45]

Thanks for the video Nick, this is a totally new one to me (the theory) but interesting all the same and the video (we love you Karl) made it understandable without getting too complicated and was amusing to boot.

Wikipedia was too complicated for my liking, and so I asked AI chatbot.

Could I reach the bottom of an infinite lake with an infinite bargepole?

The question of whether you could reach the bottom of an infinite lake with an infinite bargepole touches on concepts from mathematics and physics rather than practical reality. An infinite lake by definition has no bottom, as it extends infinitely in depth. Therefore, no matter how long your bagrepole is—whether it's infinitely long or not—you would not be able to reach a "bottom," because there isn't one.

Moreover, in a theoretical sense, if you were to have an infinite pole, reaching down infinitely wouldn't necessarily imply you could ever touch the bottom, since the lake itself is infinite. Thus, while it's an interesting thought experiment, the outcome is firmly rooted in the understanding that infinity doesn't function like finite measurements."

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

I'm not too sure about the speed of light.

Based on our current understanding of physics and the limits of the natural world, the answer, sadly, is no. According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, summarized by the famous equation E=mc2, the speed of light is something like a cosmic speed limit that cannot be surpassed.

When I think back 200 years, people said much the same about sound barrier. After train was invented, skeptics of train travel claimed that humans couldn't survive moving over about 20 miles per hour. I just wish my train on the way would come close to that speed.

Like most people Einstein wasn't always right, you should always take these theory's with a pitch of salt. Our understanding of our world changes daily. In 100 years someone may break the light barrier.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

The theory hasn't been 'debunked', I think those scientists findings have been taken out of all context...the theorem remains as solid as ever as a demonstration of the nature of infinity...it discusses infinity, not the life span of the universe I think the whole thing is slightly ridiculous, its just a thought experiment it was never meant to happen in reality, like Einstein's thought experiments about travelling at the speed of light etc

<comment_here>

 

[Elea]

If the total permutations of letters of the English language are finite, and you have an unlimited number of attempts to arrange them, with no limit to how they can be arranged, then it makes sense you'd eventually get the works of Shakespeare. I think the real issue is how this intersects with our universe. In theory, this makes sense. But where do we have infinite resources in practice? Do we have the time for trial and error to create every structure? Are there limits to the creative power of evolution?

I had the idea that the evolutionary process itself could evolve to become better at creating more ordered or adaptive structures, then I heard this idea in Richard Dawkins' book, The Ancestor's tale, where he claims to have conceived this in the late 80s. I felt I was was robbed of posthumous fame. Still, I suspect Aristotle was right that nature is more ordered and purposeful than we realize.