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: rossum on 9 Mar 2010 18:01 On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:14:30 -0500, Stefan Monnier <monnier(a)iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: >>> For another take on this have a look at the story "The Library >>> of Babel" by Jorge Luis Borges http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html >>>(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. http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/borges-quixote.html And for a third suggestion by the same author try "The Book of Sand" http://artificeeternity.com/bookofsand/ which compresses the entire library into a single book (though it does have quite a few pages). rossum > > > Stefan
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 7 Mar 2010 14:00 > >> >> 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. > .... because, as we all know, infinity divided by a finite number is ... erm ... finite and ... erm ... smaller. Robert Wilensky is proven right by this very thread.
From: Nick Keighley on 10 Mar 2010 05:29 On 8 Mar, 14:44, jellybean stonerfish <stonerf...(a)geocities.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:56:54 -0800, Nick Keighley wrote: > > shakespere didn't generate his plays by random means. > > It was random that there even was a Shakespeare. only if you use an odd definition of "random"
From: Jongware on 10 Mar 2010 06:01 On 10-Mar-10 11:29 AM, Nick Keighley wrote: > On 8 Mar, 14:44, jellybean stonerfish<stonerf...(a)geocities.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:56:54 -0800, Nick Keighley wrote: > >>> shakespere didn't generate his plays by random means. >> >> It was random that there even was a Shakespeare. > > only if you use an odd definition of "random" Well, I disagree. Given the number of permutations of his parents' genes, and those of his grandparents, etc., it's a downright miracle there ever was a Shakespeare. And he landed in just the right time, too -- we will never know if there was a very good Neanderthal playwright because they didn't write. But don't feel depressed; the odds of YOUR existence were just as slim, and yet the universe pulled that one off. [Jw]
From: pete on 10 Mar 2010 06:55
Karthik Balaguru wrote: > > Hi, > 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 ? And why was > monkey chosen to convey this theorem ? > > How far is this theorem true ? Has any monkey > proved this now :-) ?? The monkey is supposed to represent a random text generator, which is capable of generating any text. The infinite amount of time, is a condition which can not be met. (A) And (Not A), Implies (B). -- pete |