Some food for thought to get your /sci-juice revving for 2017 you fucking nerds

Oh it is absolutely retarded to claim something on a science board and support it with "well there's a chance..." I agree that it's the most autistic braindead thing ever. Whoever said it must have a 2 digit IQ.

Chance and probability don't exist. Whether or not something happens is 100% determined by prior events. The universe at the exact given moment is such that there are no deterministic chains of cause and effect that lead to such absurd realities involving millions of monkeys with typewriters inside spaceshapes. You can have as much time and as many drinking birds hitting keyboards as you want. It matters for nil if none are capable of hitting multiple different keys. Monkeys simply aren't capable, and there will never come a time in which they are capable because evolution doesn't exist.

>Probability has no place on a science board

Holy shit fucking kill yourself you dumb nigger.

Maybe you typed that post, maybe aliens abducted you and made you post it while wearing christmas hats and kneesocks.

Who knows, there's a chance. Science rite? :)))))))))))))

>there's a chance

Nope, p=0. Ebin shitpost though family.

No, because the monkeys are not machines that do every combination. Instead they will end up in loops, repeating much the same thing. They can't truly be "random".

Evolution doesn't play a part because they always remain monkeys from beginning to ending of the experiment.

>This monkey problem defends the possibility of life arising by chance.

Why?

This "this is what atheists actually believe" mindset is retarded in a way that it compairs a sonnet (or any other example brought in those types of comparisons) something that is exclusively man-made to something that could very well be a product of evolution, natural forces and so on.

This has to be a falseflag by creationists. No evolutionist would try to correlate monkeys typing up a specific string of letters to mutation and natural selection.

You can't actually believe this.

If there were infinite monkeys, sure, they'd type all of shakespeare's works and everything else ever written. One million monkeys? No.

No amount of monkeys guarantee to type shit at all.

see
The monkeys are not the Library of Babel.

#
#
#
It only talks about a possibility, 1 in 100 billion is still a possibility, no matter how scarce.

The OP failed to mention this vital part.

>just a possibility
Then why the fuck is this pointless shitpost of a statement on a science board? Anything is a possibility, even if it's 1 in 100 billion

see
for why there is 0 possibility of it happening. This isn't a math thing, due to the monkeys being added. If you used machines that typed out random characters then there would be a chance it could happen, but a very low one. If they typed out every sequence within x amount of space then eventually they'd type out all possible combinations and one of those combinations would be the entire works of Shakespeare. However, monkeys would be lucky to form a single long sentence of any kind.

As I said, infinite monkeys are guaranteed to type anything. One million monkeys, or any finite amount, will probably not type shit all.

Sorry user, I cringed at the typo so deleted the post.

>Anything is a possibility, even if it's 1 in 100 billion
Perhaps that's the beauty of it all.

no
see they are doomed to loop.

its ridiculously vague and has no credibility. what do you find beautiful about it ?

The maths have already been done. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem You would need more monkeys than their are in the known universe and more time than it has currently exixtecd just to HAVE A CHANCE of typeing out Hamlet on the first try.

You can't mix math and biology like that though. The biology of monkeys do not allow for the math to happen the way it needs to for this to actually have any chance at all, period.

It is an incorrectly formed "theorem" from the start.

'Coincidence' takes someone capable of noting it. Stating there is coincidence at all needs be entails stating there is equally 'predestinated stuff'. You scientists 'll never get it. Mckenna postulated that insight on the missing link as simpley, at a certain point fathers fully knew they were the father of a certain monkeys. Now eat my shit, thanks.

The example with monkeys is indeed flawed, but you must understand that the monkeys are only used as a fun example to entertain and pick at the interest of the mind of your average reader. The monkeys would eventaully die, the typewriters would break, the ink would run out, non matters in the grand scheme of it all.

>The infinite monkey theorem states that 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.
Note the "infinite" and "almost".

It's a fun idea to entertain about the concept of probability and chance. If you're incapable of doing so and instead worry about nitpicking perhaps your mind is simply wired in a way that doesn't favor this kind of thinking, and no, I'm not calling you stupid.

That "everything" is possible, one just has to find a way.

I don't necessarily think like this, I was just pointing the subtle implication of your post.

>still thinks everything is possible
I don't think you're reading the replies people give in this thread and just repeating the same thing by yourself...

Unfortunately, I didn't pay much attention to probabilities in university, but this seems like an interesting problem to solve. Here's my crack at it, but I'll need your help, cause I got stuck at the end.
I googled that there are 154 sonnets by Shakespeare. I looked at several and they are made of roughly 600 characters. As available symbols for typing I take 26 letters + 5 symbols (.,!? and enter). I didn't include letter capitalisation. Let's say monkeys type as average typists at 140 characters/minute.
So, 10 billion years = 5256E12 minutes.
One sonnet blank takes 2,5 minutes to type out.
All monkeys during the journey will type out this many sonnet blanks:
5256E12 / 2,5 * 1E6 = 21024E17
Chance of typing out a correct sonnet (there being 154) during those 600 characters using 31 symbols is: 154 / 31^600
To find out of at least one sonnet being typed out correctly I calculate the chance of not typing out any sonnets. So far we have this data,
Number of trials = 21024E17.
Chance of correct sonnet = 154 / 31^600
Chance P of not typing out any sonnets: (1-(154/31^600))^21024E17
After calculating this the chance of typing out at least one sonnet would be 1-P. The tough part is figuring out what those numbers mean.
I get that (1-(154/31^600)) < 1, but how can I say, that it is enough to exponentiate it 21024E17 times?
If I had to guess I'd say it approaches 0 and the chance of sonnet approaches 1.
But there must be some tricks to deal with such humongous numbers? Or maybe there are simpler ways of calculating this probability?
Enlighten me guys!

Typo at
> type as average typists at 140 characters/minute
Should have been 240 characters/minute

This is Veeky Forums not /popsci/ not /brainlet/.

With this you are basically turning monkeys into machines and making them fullfill the latter two examples in just to prove a point. The original theorem actually doesn't use monkeys in the first place. THAT is the largest problem people can't seem to understand. Instead, they go on and on about actual monkeys which is completely incorrect.

The Library of Babel is a far better thing to talk about. It has everything ever written, all past present and future writings, simply because of pure sequence. If that isn't popsci or enough for you, toss in some superstition and try to divine future events.

World record for typing is currently 212 wpm.

>biology of monkeys

No one is proposing replacing our printing presses with infinite monkey warehouses. It's a thought exercise you retard.

words per minute =/= characters per minute

So Imagine that you're in the bottom of a valley, you have a paper plane and you're trying to throw it at the top of a cliff that is a kilometer up high and there is no wind blowing to get it up there. After how many tries do you suggest that you could possibly land it at the top of a cliff?

212wpm = 1060cpm

>It's a thought exercise you retard.

Did you even read the OP? That's what we are talking about. The answer is "no" can't happen.

>Chance and probability don't exist. Whether or not something happens is 100% determined by prior events.

wew lad

it can happen if there's a tornado or hurricane or derecho

>The original theorem actually doesn't use monkeys in the first place. THAT is the largest problem people can't seem to understand. Instead, they go on and on about actual monkeys which is completely incorrect.

Isn't that exactly what I said? How dense are you?
The monkeys are only used as an example because it sticks, you want to act smart and make a point about how Veeky Forums is /notabrainlet/ then let's talk about string theory, chaos math, anything. The monkey theorem is not a complex idea, simply discussing it you're defeating your own purpose.

I am not sure what you want? To take pro typists top number as an input for very average and estimation based calculations?
Well, I took the average path, you can calculate what change would typing speed have on the result.
Anyways, the main problem now is figuring out what those numbers mean, at first I would have guessed that (1-(154/31^600))^21024E17 approaches zero.
After playing a little bit with excel and exponentiation I am not so sure anymore.
Some math guys would really help out here.

If there's a hurricane or derecho then there wouldn't be any cliff left, and there can't be a tornado coz theres no wind blowing.

I guess everything is not possible.

I don't have the means to calculate this. But unless no chages are made like stated, I don't think I will ever be able to generate enough force to throw the plane with enough energy to reach the top, so infinite times. Which creates a paradox assuming we understand the impication of infinite, which is once again an interesting abstract idea to think about, thus your point is moot.

then I guess not everything is possible ;)))))

I think everyone agrees there is definately a chance that one day a munkey is going to type the single letter;
>O

I think everyone also agrees that it is surely in the range of possibilites that said monkey, one day, hits the letter O and then the letter P right afterwards;
>OP

Now maybe the munkey, eons have passed, also manages to make a SPACE after he types said letters, followed by an I;
>OP I

Then there is surely the chance that he follows up that random combination of symbols with an S, an additional SPACE and an A;
>OP IS A

In this moment, the monkey is euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, he is enlightened by his own randomness, and finally manages to hit those sweet last letters forming one glorious sentence of undeniable truth
>OP IS A FAGGOT

The End.

I never said it was.
Notice the quotation marks around "everything". Are you just incapable of undertanding an idea unless it's chewed and spoon fed to you or just baiting?

But that's provably wrong, faggot.

Okay, some experimentation on excel gave these results:
0,9^100=2,66E-5
0,99^1000=4,32E-5
0,999^10000=4,52E-5
0,9999^100000=4,54E-5
....
0,999999999^100000000000=4,54E-5
So after a little rumination, I have no Idea what to do with those numbers.

Brilliant!

I never said it was.
see : >That "everything" is possible, one just has to find a way.

now theres egg and cum all over your face :^)

Damn, wolfram alpha came through in a big way.
>pic related
It just munched up the calculation. I guess nowadays you don't need to be very inventive with calculation when you can brute them.
Because the propability is 1-P, the chance of getting a sonnet is ~0.

Well, the example in with
>Put one million monkeys
Is nice and all, but I calculated the number of monkeys you would need, to actually be certain you'll get a sonnet:
>2,26 * 10^859
Well, I think this puts quite a bigger strain on imagination than those measly 10^6 monkeys.

Only real monkeys can't do that regardless of the amount of monkeys or length of time.

Calculate how long it would take you to find a sonnet in the Library of Babel.

getting a sonnet would be certain to happen eventually given that there are either infinite monkeys or infinite time. but no, one million monkeys for 10 billion years would definitely not be enough

I calculated it () for probability ~0,9999 which for all practical purposes can be held certainty.
I really can't tell if retard, fag or just trolling.

brainlet

typing monkey detected

Quantum mechanics btfo

this board is slow these days. I am talking about posters, of course.

>Put one million monkeys with typewriters inside a spaceship that travels for 10 billion years. By the end of the trip
The monkeys will be dead

How are you selecting the gender of the initial group of monkeys?

Everybody in this thread is basically retarded. This problem boils down to a simple probabilistic realization that events have a 50% chance to happen, it either happens or it don't.

So monkey writing a shakespeare has a 50% chance of happening baka.

Finally someone who knows what they're talking about!

Good poster on a shit board

Nowadays it is hard to say if people posting here are genuinely retarded or just are not capable of trolling imaginatively.

of course it could
>e.g. 50 keys on the keyboard
>first letter of shakespeare is ''y''
>1/50 chance he nails it
>second one is ''e''
>1/50*1/50 he nails those two in a row
etc.
now all he has to do is get really really lucky and get a couple of million of them right in a row and that's it

ITT niggas that didn't read Borges

I wonder who started this thread..

Isn't a sequence of DNA a specific string of letters?

No. But amino acid sequences are.

The typewriters wouldn't last 20 minutes. They would be broken, and urinated on.

"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet,
we know that it is not true."
– Robert Wilensky, UC Berkeley (1996)

Is this the only instance where Karl believes monkeys to be less capable than humans?

Is there any context for this bantz besides cynicism?