Technology

59517 readers

3121 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

545

Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds (phys.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by VantaBrandon@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

198 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The question that everyone has been dying to know has been answered. Finally! What will scientists study next?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think the point is less about any kind of route to Hamlet, and more about the absurdity of infinite tries in a finite space(time). There are a finite (but extremely large) number of configurations of English characters in a work the length of Hamlet. If you have truly an infinite number of attempts (monkeys, time, or both are actually infinite) and the trials are all truly random (every character is guaranteed to have the same chance as every other) then you will necessarily arrive at that configuration eventually.

As far as your process, of procedurally generating each letter one by one until you have the completed works, we actually have a monkey who more or less did that already. His name is William.

[–] gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

monkey who more or less did that already. His name is William.

????????

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Ol Bill Shakespeare. He wrote Hamlet, one correct letter at a time.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well. technically he was an ape rather than a monkey.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Technically true, I think it still fits for the layman.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Humans are apes, apes are monkeys, paraphyletic groups are bullshit.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

To be entirely fair, apes aren't monkeys. I don't think that particular distinction is really all that relevant to the discussion, but technically...

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

From wikipedia:

Traditionally, all animals in the group now known as simians are counted as monkeys except the apes. Thus monkeys, in that sense, constitute an incomplete paraphyletic grouping; however, in the broader sense based on cladistics, apes (Hominoidea) are also included, making the terms monkeys and simians synonyms in regard to their scope.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh neat. This is all taxonomy that is well beyond me. My defense of calling humans monkeys is that everyone does it, and that's how language works. Glad to know I'm correct too, technically lol

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Username checks out.

[–] gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

isnt that a misconception? apes just share a common ancestor with us

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think the point is less about any kind of route to Hamlet, and more about the absurdity of infinite tries in a finite space(time).

I know. It's just that creationists misuse that metaphor so often that I couldn't help but share my brainfart here.