Taking a theory that requires unconstrained infinity, and then pointing out it can’t happen in our constrained universe, hardly requires a press release.
Taking a theory that requires unconstrained infinity, and then pointing out it can’t happen in our constrained universe, hardly requires a press release.
Taking a theory that requires unconstrained infinity, and then pointing out it can’t happen in our constrained universe, hardly requires a press release.
Indeed but it does dispel this age old idiom
No it doesn't. Because the theorem relies on there being an infinite number of monkeys.
The adage is about "infinite" amount of time and monkeys. Given that the reason it can't happened is due to the finite life of the universe, it looks like they have done a great job of disproving a theory completely different to the idiom.
Taking a theory that requires unconstrained infinity, and then pointing out it can’t happen in our constrained universe, hardly requires a press release.
Indeed but it does dispel this age old idiom
No it doesn't. Because the theorem relies on there being an infinite number of monkeys.
Which is reliant upon time being infinite which it probably isn’t.
Taking a theory that requires unconstrained infinity, and then pointing out it can’t happen in our constrained universe, hardly requires a press release.
Indeed but it does dispel this age old idiom
No it doesn't. Because the theorem relies on there being an infinite number of monkeys.
Which is reliant upon time being infinite which it probably isn’t.
An infinite number of monkeys would type the works of Shakespeare in a finite length of time
Presumably those two Aussie mathematicians were paid for that study. Easy work if you can get it.
"if you ignore the 'infinite' bit of that old saying, it's probably not true. Any questions?
What's that? The whole point of the thing is that it's about the nature of infinity? Ah well, never mind, fancy paying us for a year long study on whether all the world is in fact a stage?"
This is no disrespect to you Shooters, but that might be the stupidest thing I have ever read published by actual "academics"
I don't know about stupidest, but on face value, it looks like a contender for the most pointless. You don't need to know the lifespan of the universe to understand that the notion of uncovering a Simian Shakespeare is, and can only be, entirely hypothetical. We can't even look after the monkeys we have got; of the 488 species of monkey over half, 265, currently appear on the IUCN's red list. The whole idea of corralling a large number, let alone an infinite number, into a typing pool is ridiculous (perhaps that is actually the power of the theorem).
Having said that, I presume that the exercise was a vehicle for honing and developing mathematical skills and that there was learning beyond the stuff that would have grabbed the headline writers' attention.
Monkeys will never type the complete works of Shakespeare but the key word is infinite so it is possible although dead monkeys will constantly need replacing and even then the time requirement will outlast us.
Taking a theory that requires unconstrained infinity, and then pointing out it can’t happen in our constrained universe, hardly requires a press release.
Indeed but it does dispel this age old idiom
No it doesn't. Because the theorem relies on there being an infinite number of monkeys.
Which is reliant upon time being infinite which it probably isn’t.
Our knowledge of the universe is limited and much of that is
due to the constraints of our brains.
We share 99% of our DNA with
chimpanzees, yet chimps are unaware of written languages, the industrial revolution
or the atomic age. Imagine what we might achieve if we were just a further 1% evolved. In that scenario, what we consider the height of human
evolution today might seem as primitive as chimps using sticks to eat termites.
Taking a theory that requires unconstrained infinity, and then pointing out it can’t happen in our constrained universe, hardly requires a press release.
Indeed but it does dispel this age old idiom
No it doesn't. Because the theorem relies on there being an infinite number of monkeys.
Which is reliant upon time being infinite which it probably isn’t.
An infinite number of monkeys would type the works of Shakespeare in a finite length of time
They'd never be able to source that many typewriters though.
Comments
The statement is still true.
"if you ignore the 'infinite' bit of that old saying, it's probably not true. Any questions?
What's that? The whole point of the thing is that it's about the nature of infinity? Ah well, never mind, fancy paying us for a year long study on whether all the world is in fact a stage?"
Having said that, I presume that the exercise was a vehicle for honing and developing mathematical skills and that there was learning beyond the stuff that would have grabbed the headline writers' attention.
The two students involved are seriously impressive.
Our knowledge of the universe is limited and much of that is due to the constraints of our brains.
We share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, yet chimps are unaware of written languages, the industrial revolution or the atomic age. Imagine what we might achieve if we were just a further 1% evolved. In that scenario, what we consider the height of human evolution today might seem as primitive as chimps using sticks to eat termites.
Except for, like, their use of, like, like.
Very impressive, although it should be called the Baudhayan Theorem!
> finite monkeys
> finite time