this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
1139 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

11161 readers
2700 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 217 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

And the study was even proven wrong in the 17th century. A finite amount of monkeys already produced Shakespeare in a finite amount of time; it took roughly 55 million years.

Source: Primates show up in the fossil records, dating to roughly 55mill years. And Shakespeare's complete works were most likely completed by William Shakespeare, a famous decendant of said primates.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 23 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)
[–] Enkrod 39 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

If baboons and macaques are monkeys, and if howlermonkeys and spidermonkeys are monkeys, humans MUST be monkeys.

Because they can ONLY both be monkeys if their common ancestor was also a monkey and we share that very same common ancestor. In fact we are closer related to macaques and baboons than to spidermonkeys, which means we share a more recent common ancestor with old world monkeys than both us and the other old world monkeys share with the new world monkeys.

Cladistically, you can not outgrow your ancestry.

Humans are apes, apes are a subgroup of monkeys, monkeys are a subgroub of primates.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Monkeys are a social construct. Like trees.

[–] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

If trees aren't real, how can our birds be real?

...I am so sorry

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 110 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

The entire thing is utterly ridiculous. The meme is infinite monkeys.

The mathematician said, "But what if it was 200k monkeys?"

Reporters claim mathematician proved infinite monkeys meme is wrong.

200,000 does not equal infinite!

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

The whole thing is dumb if you accept a premise of "infinite monkeys". An infinite number of monkeys will type the works of shakespeare immediately, because an infinite number of them will start with the very first key they hit and continue until the end. (So it'll be complete exactly as fast as a monkey can type it, typing as fast as simianly possible, with no mistakes.) You don't even need the infinite time.

It only becomes interesting if you look at the finite scenarios.

And BTW, the lifespan of the universe is finite due to the eventual decay of all matter, including the monkeys and the typewriters. There's no infinite time.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A more interesting calculation the mathematician should have done is how many monkeys are needed to write Shakespeare in the lifespan of the universe rather than starting with 200k.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Saying that last bit about time is not particularly meaningful for two reasons.

First of all, we do not especially know the end state of the universe. It may not be true that all matter decays, and protons may be stable. We may be in a false vacuum which will spontaneously collapse in large timespans.

Second of all, the hypothetical is a thought experiment. The monkeys are a placeholder for any random generation of characters. The thought experiment also does not take into consideration the food required to feed monkeys for infinite time, nor their aging, mutation over generations, and waste logistics. It's not meaningful then to suddenly decide to apply the laws of physics to them. The only laws applicable in this scenario are logic and mathematics.

I generally agree with the rest of your take, although I disagree where you say the thought experiment is dumb. I only have an issue with that last point lol. Cheers.

[–] srecko@lemm.ee 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The whole thing is dumb if you accept a premise of "infinite monkeys".

If thats the point where you want to draw the line, I guess that it becomes dumb at exactly that point.

But the point of the thought experiment is that it says what you said: it will definitelly happen because infinity is absurdly big number.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 weeks ago

-1/12 monkeys

[–] iii@mander.xyz 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

200,000 does not equal infinite!

It's close though. I can't think of a bigger number.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 77 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

It only took a couple billion monkeys a few million years but one did eventually write out the full works of Shakespeare

[–] Leg@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is always how I've chosen to interpret the expression. It's not a theory. It's an observation.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

It's a thought experiment, not an observation. The idea is that if you have infinity and it's truly random than eventually all possibilities emerge somewhere within that.

The idea of infinite monkeys typing randomly on infinite typewriters is that eventually one of them would accidentally type out all the works of Shakespeare. Many more would type out parts of the works of Shakespeare. And many many many more would type random garbage.

If we then take that forwadd imagine for a moment the multiverse is also infinite and random, then every possible universe would exist somewhere in that multiverse.

It can be taken in other directions too. It's a way of cocneptualising the implications of infinity and true randomness.

Meanwhile actual Shakespeare had intelligence and wrote and created his works. Him being a monkey writing Shakespeare is just a sly humerous observation, but it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the thought experiment and the idea it is trying to convey.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah, the point isn't that they could write Shakespeare. But that they would write everything we could imagine + everything in between that.

It tries to explain the concept of infinity. Which is mind boggling to any human.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] formergijoe@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Alas, not on a typewriter... Back to the drawing board!

[–] AThing4String@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

No, the FIRST monkey to write Shakespeare used a feather and ink.

It only took a couple hundred years after all those millions for them to be written on the typewriter.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Turns out not quite. In the monkey version Hamlet says, "To be, or what."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 53 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

As I pointed out elsewhere about this: it also is based entirely on probability, like cracking encryption. It could take longer than the universe will be around. But there's also the possibility they write Hamlet within a year because they got lucky.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 34 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

if it's infinite monkeys then an infinite amount of them do it correct on the first try

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

If the monkeys were truly infinite would time even matter? For any set of monkeys that could write Hamlet within a year there's an infinite number of duplicate sets, so they could do as much writing in one day as the original set would do over the age of the universe.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

What part of Infinity is a mathematician, of all people, failing to comprehend? So what if it takes until cosmological decade 1,000 or 1 million or 1mil⁹⁰⁰⁰, it's still possible on an infinite timescale, of one could devise a way for it all to survive the heat death of the universe ad infinitum.

[–] KaiFeng@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

I have read the paper, the news make it seem like something that is not. It's a tough experiment and mostly a joke. From the paper closing remarks:

Given plausible estimates of the lifespan of the universe and the amount of possible monkey typists available, this still leaves huge orders of magnitude differences between the resources available and those required for non-trivial text generation. As such, we have to conclude that Shakespeare himself inadvertently provided the answer as to whether monkey labour could meaningfully be a replacement for human endeavour as a source of scholarship or creativity. To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hell, infinite monkeys over a finite amount of time or finite monkeys over an infinite amount of time does the trick.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It's also possible that it's not possible even on an infinite time scale. A quick example: if you asked an algorithm to choose a number, and you choose 6536639876555721, but the algorithm only chooses from the infinite number of even numbers, it will never choose your number. So for the monkeys, if they are just not 'programmed' to ever be able to write a whole Shakespeare play, they will not be able to even with infinite time and infinite moneys.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 7 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Disagree. Within the confines of the thought experiment the monkeys are working with the standard alphabet and punctuation. There's no reason to assume that they would never use the letter t or something like that, especially given the infinite time scale.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The "Infinite monkey theorem" concerns itself with Probability (the mathematical field). It has been mathematically proven that given the random input (the mathematical kind - not the human-created kind) of the monkeys, and the infinite time, the probability of the "complete works of William Shakespeare" rolling out of the typewriter in between the other random output is 1.

It's a mathematical theorem that just uses monkeys to speak to the imagination, not a practical exercise, other than to prove the maths.

You should look into another brain-breaking probability problem called the "Monty Hall Problem". Note that some of the greatest mathematical minds of the time failed said puzzle. Switching 100% increases the chance of winning. No, it won't guarantee a win, but it will increase your chances, mathematically.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gramie@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But given infinite time, could OP spell "infinity" correctly?

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Well if you give them infintiny time... maybe.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

infintiny? you bloopid monkye

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 18 points 3 weeks ago

You stupid monkey!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good glad to hear monkeys will produce their own unique literature instead of copying the classics.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago

Huh. I'd never thought of it like that, but now that you mention it with an infinite number of monkeys one of them will eventually write an entire literary canon of plays that blow that loser Shakespeare out of the water.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

That research is worst type of reddit ACKCHYUALLY taken to academia

I fear the plague of reddit brainrot will soon make even research papers plain insufferable. Would you want to have moderator of 11 subreddits and holder of top 1% commenters achievement in your research group?

[–] KrankyKong@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Something weird I've been noticing. Lately I've been unintentionally minimizing comments before I've finished reading them. Just happened with yours. It's like some subconscious part of my brain goes "booorrring!" half way through reading anything longer than two sentences and immediately goes for the next dopamine kick.

And I'm not knocking your comment. I was genuinely interested in what I was reading. It's just a little troubling. I dropped Reddit and Lemmy a while back because I felt like I was becoming addicted. I lasted a few months, but evidently I've fallen off the wagon.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 18 points 3 weeks ago

Them saying that is like me saying Bizmuth isn't radioactive because it's half-life is many, many times longer than even the most conservative estimates for the heat-death of the universe.

In finite time that's effectively true, because the universe itself would decay before a block of bizmuth lost any significant weight - but it isn't physically true, because with infinite time a block of bizmuth left completely alone would evaporate away via alpha decay.

And that's the point of infinite time - to let you throw away time and probabilities as obstacles and strictly focus on whether something could physically happen, rather than the odds of it occurring.

[–] cactopuses@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Just thinking at a high level, an infinite number of monkies should hypothetically almost instantly produce Shakespeare (or at least as quickly as they can type)

Conversely, 1 monkey would eventually produce it given infinity time.

[–] IHateReddit@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

1 monkey would likely die before producing Shakespeare

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 weeks ago

infinite monkey theorem relies on the assumption that infinite banana theorem is valid

[–] WoolyNelson@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Back in my IT support days, IPX routing had a "Count to Infinity" problem when the number of hops between sites went above 15. We used to joke that this made 16 "Infinity".

Being nerds at the time, we did napkin math to prove the Shakespearian Monkey Quotient was 256cmy (combined monkey years) for "Hamlet".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Still stuck on step 1. Get infinite monkeys.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago

But monkeys never ask questions.

Science has yet to determine if monkeys would be able to type "wherefore art thou Romeo?"

[–] Gort@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This thread could well have been written by an infinite amount of monkeys, too.

Thoiei0z ao;qjlk a 2897n3 eiie??! hoenwk a ;jihiwe a wiiien theohg rosebud oiwoi;qne i93823hnn banana

[–] Fleur_@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

They already have, we evolved from a species you could colloquially refer to as monkeys. The ancestors of those monkeys went on to write Shakespeare

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Next question, would Shakespeare appear in the Library of Babel?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

infinite - infinite = infinite, take that infinite

load more comments
view more: next ›