Monkey and a poet's work ?
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 600 - where to define?
Next: WinGDB - debugging remote Linux/Unix, MinGW/Cygwin, embedded systems under Visual Studio
From: Karthik Balaguru on 7 Mar 2010 13:39 On Mar 7, 11:02 pm, j...(a)toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) wrote: > In comp.unix.programmer Karthik Balaguru <karthikbalagur...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I came across the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem'. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem > > I wonder how can a monkey hitting keys at random on > > a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will > > almost surely type a given text, such as the complete > > works of William Shakespeare ? > > What could be not in an infinite set? You will have not > only the works of Shakespeare, but also all his works > with all kinds of typos, readers digest versions etc.;-) > Readers digest version too :-) :-) :-) Yeah, an infinite set can have all kind of works ! > > And why was monkey chosen to convey this theorem ? > > Because at the time someone came up with this idea there > weren't any keyboards that cats use for sleeping on. :-) :-) Maybe, cat might eat the mouse ;-) > That > later led to the theorem that given enough cats, keyboards > and time all possible Perl scripts will be created. > > > How far is this theorem true ? Has any monkey > > proved this now :-) ?? > > Well, instead of using a single monkey, giving it infinite > time, you can use a large number of monkeys for a shorter > time. :-) :-) > Now, since the works of Shakespeare actually have been > written (assming that Shakespeare was a kind of monkey and > you don't instsit on the typewriter part), the theorem thus > has been experimentally proven (as a possibly uninteded side > effect of the mice having earth produced for finding "the" > question). > > For another take on this have a look at the story "The Library > of Babel" by Jorge Luis Borges (who was, BTW, the model for > the blind librarian in Eco's "The Name of the Rose"). > :-) Karthik Balaguru
From: Ben Bacarisse on 7 Mar 2010 14:40 jt(a)toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) writes: > In comp.unix.programmer Karthik Balaguru <karthikbalaguru79(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I came across the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem'. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem > >> I wonder how can a monkey hitting keys at random on >> a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will >> almost surely type a given text, such as the complete >> works of William Shakespeare ? > > What could be not in an infinite set? You will have not > only the works of Shakespeare, but also all his works > with all kinds of typos, readers digest versions etc.;-) You probably should clarify this: "what could not be in an infinite set constructed like this?"[1]. The mere fact that the set is infinite is not enough to ensure that even one word of Shakespeare is almost surely present. [1] or "what could not be in such a set?". <snip> -- Ben.
From: Nicolas George on 7 Mar 2010 15:12 Ben Bacarisse wrote in message <0.9da34275b07558e5d425.20100307194028GMT.87d3zf6hub.fsf(a)bsb.me.uk>: > The mere fact that the set is > infinite is not enough to ensure that even one word of Shakespeare is > almost surely present. For example, the infinite number of monkeys could not type a single chapter of Victor Hugo in a dumb text editor with an US keyboard.
From: Stefan Monnier on 7 Mar 2010 15:14 >> For another take on this have a look at the story "The Library >> of Babel" by Jorge Luis Borges (who was, BTW, the model for >> the blind librarian in Eco's "The Name of the Rose"). You might like the "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" as well, for a different take on it. Stefan
From: Nick Keighley on 8 Mar 2010 04:56
On 7 Mar, 18:02, j...(a)toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) wrote: > In comp.unix.programmer Karthik Balaguru <karthikbalagur...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I came across the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem'. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem > > I wonder how can a monkey hitting keys at random on > > a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will > > almost surely type a given text, such as the complete > > works of William Shakespeare ? > > What could be not in an infinite set? lots of things. An infinite set doesn't have to contain all values with equal probability. It is far from clear that pi expressed as a decimal fraction and then mapped to ascii in some reasonable manner / has/ to contain the complete works of shakespere. Nasty stuff infinity. <snip> > > How far is this theorem true ? Has any monkey > > proved this now :-) ?? > > Well, instead of using a single monkey, giving it infinite > time, you can use a large number of monkeys for a shorter > time. so if I used 10 monkeys how much time would I save? > Now, since the works of Shakespeare actually have been > written (assming that Shakespeare was a kind of monkey and > you don't instsit on the typewriter part), the theorem thus > has been experimentally proven (as a possibly uninteded side > effect of the mice having earth produced for finding "the" > question). shakespere didn't generate his plays by random means. > For another take on this have a look at the story "The Library > of Babel" by Jorge Luis Borges (who was, BTW, the model for > the blind librarian in Eco's "The Name of the Rose"). -- Nick Keighley "Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann |