/lit/ - Literature

You.

He is. Infinity is infinite, and therefore the chance that in all their typing they at some moment type the complete works of Shakespeare is 1.

Him.

>>3228401
Surely the chance that they will get it wrong is also 1.

If you take just one stream, it must be possible that the monkey will type an infinite number of the letter 'a.'

You are both wrong.
Monkeys have a finite lifespan. They would not live long enough to write anything worthwhile.

>>3228414
>Surely the chance that they will get it wrong is also 1.

Yeah. But they're typing forever, so eventually they won't.

>>3228417
Um, have you seen Project X? (The Matthew Broderick/monkey vehicle, not the lolsorandum movie of 2011). They can fly fighter planes. FIGHTER PLANES.

>>3228417
Some does

>>3228393
The question is, are they typing randomly? They might just be trying to translate American Psycho adequately into Mongolian for eternity.

you are both correct

>>3228393
He is right. There are different "infinities", some bigger than the other.

If I roll a dice an infinite number of times, there are infinite possibilities that I never roll a 5, but the chance that I roll a 5 at least once is infinitely more likely than not.

You're wrong. Let's talk about it in terms of rolling a 6. You have 5/6 odds each time, and he has 1/6 odds. The difference though, is that he only needs to land it once. You need to hit on it every consecutive time. Your odds (while higher) decrease as time passes, while his increase.

>>3228422
>Yeah. But they're typing forever, so eventually they won't.

IF they 'eventually won't,' as soon as they finish the complete works of Shakespeare time becomes finite and you say "Well done monkeys, it took 1.2 billion years." But the possibility always exists that it could take twice the time that it did.

for them to do it would pull them out of infinity and give them a finite time, when they could have continued to get it wrong.

Read the Wikipedia page for the Infinite Monkey Theorem.

>Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys the size of atoms typing from now until the end of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be a great many orders of magnitude less than one in 10^183,800.

So no.

>>3228439
>There are different "infinities", some bigger than the other.

Settle down now, Cantor.

>>3228442
The odds decrease as time continues, but the tiny potential never diminishes to zero. it just shoots further down the decimal places.

what came first -- time or the clock?

p.s. the clock is not literally a clock (not always)

>>3228464
0.00000...0001 repeating etc. is zero.

>>3228450
>from now until the end of the universe

OP said infinite time.

>>3228467
The clock because time does not exist outside of our minds.

First, there is another thing to this problem that you are lefting out: if the monkeys get a single letter right, the letter remains at the next trial. That is, a copy of Shakespeare is there to be compared and so if the 20th letter of Hamlet is "y", then if the monkey hits "y" at that point, it stays that way.

>>3228467
They are the same thing.

Time is the clock that times itself.

counting counting?

counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting counting

>>3228480
It doesn't matter. The monkey could potentially get the first letter wrong an infinite amount of times.

>>3228452
He's right though. There are an infinite number of integers. For every integer, the is square number which is the square of that integer. So there are also an infinite number of square numbers. At the same time, there are always more integers than square numbers. So there must be separate infinities.

watches watch watches?

no...

time times time.

yes...closer...and a brain too, vibrating in/on/with it.

mathematically speaking, you are OP.

in a simplified version, you could flip a coin forever and it could come up heads every single time.

lrn2almost-certainly/almost-never

>>3228480
>>3228450
>>3228443
>>3228508


Very few of you seem to understand what happens when you repeat tests with non-zero probabilities an infinite number of times. We might as well disregard all of calculus by your logic.

>>3228508
This.

"The probability that an infinite randomly generated string of text will contain a particular finite substring is 1. However, this does not mean the substring's absence is "impossible", despite the absence having a prior probability of 0. For example, the immortal monkey could randomly type G as its first letter, G as its second, and G as every single letter thereafter, producing an infinite string of Gs; at no point must the monkey be "compelled" to type anything else."

>>3228520
Who has tested this out an infinite amount of times? Have they started yet? Or finished? Perhaps both until further investigation?

>>3228518
But that's not Cantor's proof. Cantor and Russell were happy to accept that square numbers and integers both have the same cardinality. There are an equal number of both.

Lol no one here can into math

>>3228393
I love how this everyone who says this says "a thousand monkeys." It doesn't matter. It could just be one monkey, typing for an infinite amount of time. It could be an infinite number of monkeys typing for a very brief time. The nature of infinity is that it renders differences between non-zero numbers irrelevant. As long as the probability is greater than zero, the problem doesn't change. In the end, its a paradox, because the probability of the monkeys accomplishing the task become 1, but it is still possible for them to not accomplish the task.

You know, what would be more interesting to think about is whether it is possible for the monkeys to write a good story (i.e. as good as Shakespeare's work), but not exactly Shakespeare, something new, but brilliant.

Because it doesn't matter if it is Shakespeare or gibberish, the mathematics of the problem would be the same for either case, as long as we have the original text to compare and then wait for them to reach it (or not). But if we had time to read all the attempts, how much thought would they evoke on us? If in a particular case, real words emerge in the middle of the text, but have a arguable construction, would we argue on whether that has a meaning or not? Or perhaps they *almost* write Hamlet, but with different words here and there and what if... it actually becomes better to our eyes? And if a monkey out of the ones in the experiment makes an extraordinary deliberate creative attempt to write something, would that be overlooked by us as part of the regular experiment?

I think we can take this elsewhere. The mathematics is much less important here anyway, take it to /sci/.

>>3228555
This. As I roll a dice an infinite number of times the probability of me getting a 5 approaches 1, but there exists a solution set where it never happens.

>>3228476
>sunrise
>sunset

You don't have to attach hours and minutes to it to recognize that time is passing

once upon a time a man farted and it was good. others heard and smelt the fart and they felt it was good too. but the fart brought with it questions, and an awareness never before awared of. some thought they knew the fart better than others. some denied the fart exists. some just like the fart for no reason. fart.

>>3228578
But time is not a linear thing, assuming it exists. Time is just our perception of events.

>>3228586
lol don't play kant, you're bad at it.

>>3228393
He is correct. If its an infinite amount of time then all possibilities have to occur an infinite amount of times. Because a prerequisite for your scenario happening is that his scenario doesn't happen it therefore is impossible.

>>3228567
No such solution set exists, surely?

>>3228578

The sun counts as a clock. In fact, anything observed could be said to be a clock, including the observer, who funnily enough observes himself too.

>>3228599

so the clock is the clock that clocks the clock.

i.e. time only exists under observation

>>3228601

i'll do what i want, eat a dick. fanny.

>>3228450
You are a stupid cunt

>UHH ITS VERY UNLIKELY SO IT WONT HAPPEN
>how do i into infinite time
>you
>pick 3

>>3228612
Hey man, stop pretending to be me.

>>3228464
The odds do not decrease with time, the odds are always the same because they can repeat combinations they've already typed.

>>3228616

no u

Is this sent by sci

if you acknowledge there is change within reality, you acknowledge time. if you don't, then how the fuck are you posting?

>>3228598
yes there is

Guys, guys!

Guys, shut up.

Shut up and let's get to the point.

/lit/ will now begin its most ambitious project.

We'll try that out. Everyone post a line with the eyes closed, we'll try Shakespeare.

juwe9042ujr 9023u4 ][sdfsdfsq1239tfhlk,M. AZPO1-JLKASDiuokjhnfwqYHP

Damn... This should take a while.

>>3228566
>whether it is possible for the monkeys to write a good story
I suspect James Joyce tried this when writing Finnegans wake.

>>3228622

>implying we'll ever discover the sender of anything

>>3228393
>He said that isn't an issue with infinity. They can only get it wrong for a finite amount of time, eventually they must get it right as time is infinite.
>Who is correct?
given infinite time every possible combination will be achieved and eventually they will become redundant and the monkeys will have typed shakespeare's works not just once, but an infinite amount of times.

He is right. The possibility that they replicate the complete works of everything is 1 over an infinite length of time.

Doesn't matter if they get it wrong an infinite amount of times because they'll get it right an infinite amount of times as well.

>>3228650
>and the monkeys will have typed shakespeare's works not just once, but an infinite amount of times.

What about the set where they get it wrong an infinite amount of times?

>>3228650
>every possible combination will be achieved

you haven't figured the negative into your view

>>3228656
>Doesn't matter if they get it wrong an infinite amount of times because they'll get it right an infinite amount of times as well.
So they are both right?

>>3228662
>What about the set where they get it wrong an infinite amount of times?
>>3228669
>>3228669
>So they are both right?

Every infinity will be actualized

>>3228676

so we're back to the multitude of infinities

if we're adding one all the time, then maybe, the one is an illusion, and for every one there is many, unseen. well, in this case the universe is static, only moving in slight vibrations as the counter counts and is echoed by his other counters.

>>3228669
>So they are both right?
No, they're both wrong

/thread

>>3228686
This

Lol, monkeys.

>>3228707

because infinity is a language trap?

>>3228714

>>3228720
>implying apes are monkeys

>>3228723
>implying owls are birds

>Hi /phil/

GET OUT

>/lit/ arguing about math

>>3228735
>/sci/ shitposting on /lit/
kill yourself you fucking piece of shit cuntbeans

>>3228746
Most /sci/ are Nordic Aryans whats your point?

You pleb merikas.

>>3228735
*Maths

>>3228763

*maff

>>3228785
>voiceless labiodental fricative
get the fuck out of here you barbarian

>>3228393
Infinity implies that there are infinite variations of writing produced by the monkeys. One is bound to become the works of Shakespeare, but only ideally.

>>3228393
>monkeys
>monsieur

feck eff

>>3228439
>There are different "infinities", some bigger than the other.
This is bullshit and I don't care what fuckers like Cantor and Hilbert say

it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times?!

>>3228393
The saying has infinite monkeys (basically irrelevant change, but whatever), and it says they will ALMOST certainly do it. In that form it is not flawed.

>>3228880
The amount of decimals between 1 and 2 are infinite, but greater than the amount of decimals between 2 and 5.

You're wrong, OP.

Learn some basic probability.

>>3228935
It comes down to set theory, not basic probability.

The fact is that OP is misinterpreting the probability of things. He suggests that there is both a probability of failure and success, which is really irrelevant to the original point.

ITT: Imperfect humans trying to perfect imperfect human concepts.

>>3228625
atoms and molecules react to energy, creating the entire physical world. humans have observed this, and, using memory, can trace the position of matter. the idea of matter changing position has been named "time" but to suggest that "time" is a recording of the position of matter or is a force that controls the position of matter is completely unfounded. the present is the only element of "time" that "exists" as it represents the position of matter in the universe. the fact that human beings can recall previous positions of matter, or effect future positions of matter does not mean that the "past" or the "future" exist anywhere but within the simulations of our own mind.

>>3229119

which is why buddhism has the wisest words

>>3229136
bit of a jump, but ok

We could only ever know if we were to test it out, bud that is impossible

we are moving but we are not the movement

He is right, of course. Just like all of Shakespeare is encoded in pi.

Though this thread might be better for >>>/sci/

>>3228414
But they only need to type the plays right once for it to count.

The chance that they'll type the plays wrong is also 1, but they'll type it right /eventually/ given infinite time. The chance that they'd get it wrong infinitely is 0.

>>3229178
are we human? or are we dancer?

>>3228909

Actually that is wrong. Both of those infinities are equal, which shows how much you know about math. Cantor's alephs discuss different orders of infinities, bub.

Nothing can happen every time if it's on an infinite amount of time, so you are wrong.
Everything will happen eventually

>>3229201
I got ham but I'm not a hamster.

>>3229239
i got soul, but im not a soldier.

>>3228469

If numbers are infinite and there is an infinite distance between intervals, then your statement would imply that 1 is 5, and 4 is 100, and .0001 is 10,000.

>>3229216

apart from nothing, so ur wrong nenananenanaen

>>3229201
>>3229243
Go away Brandon Flowers

>>3229239
You too Bill Bailey.

there are a finite number of possible strings precisely as long as Shakespeare's complete works therefore if you try an infinite number of times you will get his complete works.

The chance that the complete works of Shakespeare being typed by 1000 monkeys in an infinite amount of time is 1/X - The chance that anything else would be typed is (X-1)/X. Because there are only a finite amount of possible combinations of letters, one of which is the complete works of Shakespeare, given an infinite amount of time it could occur. X, of course, is the amount of combinations possible.

>>3228393
Monkeys literally can not fathom human language. The closest any non-Human ape has ever come was a Bonobo that could understand some words but never came close to the complexities of a sentence. Your monkeys would have to evolve into homo sapiens, or another sapiens that somehow acquired an advanced mind for their brain.

Are you suggesting that the writing of Shakespeare's Complete Works is cosmologically necessary or constant?

Just ready the library of Babel. FUCK OFF

>>3229279
And that's completely unrelated to anything.

Rephrase the question, OP:

If I continue to flick a normal coin and had an infinite amount of time, will I eventually get 10 heads in a row?

The answer is; it is possible to get 10 heads in a row, but not definite. There is a set in which you have an infinite string of tails, and multiple sets including various strings of heads that are all under 10.

Him.

Infinity minus one (the one time they got it right) is infinity. He was right.

>>3228400
>I guess he should have taken it to /sci/.

Monkeys typing for infinity is what mankind are.
The complete works of Shakespeare were written by species of apes that yet had realized that time would end, that our place in the universe would cease to exist.

The fact that the complete works of shakespeare exist, makes the argument true.

>>3229284
interesting

>>3230832

>>3228909
Go back to elementary school and take math again.

In a sense, both are. You have to completely discount the idea that monkeys could ever use a typewriter to write, in which case you have an infinity as large as the infinite amount of time. If you can't discount that, but think it could still take 1000 monkeys an infinite amount of time because they keep getting it wrong, but you don't completely quash the idea that they could get it right, then that infinity can be smaller than the infinite amount of time.

>>3230819
The probability is 1. Assuming the probability of getting a head is 1/2, and each toss is independent of any other toss, yes he would have to get ten heads in a row.

>there is a set in which you have an infinite string of tails.
Not if you flip one coin an infinite number of times. Yes, if you flip an infinite number of coins an infinite number of times, this will happen, otherwise not.
>multiple sets including various strings of heads that are all under 10
I'm not going to try and decipher this drivel.

>>3230829
Of course, they'd get it right an infinite number of times... and wrong an infinite number of times.

>>3230838
>cardinality of infinite sets
>elementary school
You're right that he's wrong, but still.

>mfw /lit/ tries to into math

>>3228476
GTFO Kant.

>>3228520
Yes, someone else who knows a little math. I hope you're enjoying your superiority as much as I am.

Are /lit/ bad at math, or is the average /lit/ user just stupid, if you put them to the test?

>>3228882
came here to post this, saw you beat me to the punch. Nice job.

>/lit/ trying to math

You just can't do it guys, stick to fighting the patriarchy and capitalism. This is not for you.

>>3230882
<s>it does?</s>

>>3228417
Fuck u.
Lies.
You don't know biology and you don't know shit. You'll never be a science.

This is a ridiculous notion, and not plausible at all. To assume that the monkey will type the entire work of Shakespeare by mere chance, without formal knowledge in any language, isn't even mathematically agreeable.

It's neither possible nor probable; In an infinite amount of the time the monkey may have equally repeated incoherent alphabet soup. In order to reconstruct Hamlet, one would have to have formal knowledge of grammar and sentence structure. Do you really think anything, even anyone could slap together at least 20,000 words, and in that mess somehow probably space words, assign names, form coherent words, and develop an entire story - All without even knowing what they're talking about? Don't think so.

Again, infinity does not assume that the monkey is typing unique things at all. It's not even assuming that the monkey knows what it is to space words out. It would be forever "wfsafjajfhasjfbnasfioaptuakshfa".

>>3231430
You seem to focus on how probable it is mathematically, and that's fine, but then you just take the rest of the premise for granted with "do you really think..." kind of argument.

The challenge of doing Shakespeare's Hamlet is of course farfetched, but that's the very exageration that is used to direct your attention to the probabilities and not to the language issue. In order to reconstruct Hamlet one doesn't need formal knowledge of grammar and sentence structure, afterall, it's just letter after letter. The code can exist regardless of the intentions of the author. If we assigned the monkeys into writing the word "apple", it's much better to see it happening. And they don't mean "apple", just like they don't mean "Hamlet", which is the true interesting part of the whole monkey thing.

>>3231430
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>yfw
The monkey is just a metaphor for a random character generator.

>>3230829

Hohohoho. Theoretical maths student here. The "infinite infinities" theory says that there are, well, an infinite number of infinities. Look at it this way:

The 2 dimensional plane extends for infinity. Say you have a line, let's just say y= 1 for example. Now, at, let's just say (1,1) you divide draw a vertical line. To the left, how many points are there? An infinite number. How about to the right? An infinite number. So, you have 2g, where g=infinity. So, 2g>g, right? Infinites are different in magnitude, /lit/, get your act together.

Hard mode:
In 3 dimensional space, you have graphs of 2 dimensional planes. The intersection of 3 planes is a line, which has, again, an infinite number of points. But, 3 graphs inhabiting the same area (think "dependent" lines in 2d) have an infinite number of lines intersecting, so how many points are shared? Well, g^g! Truly, infinity to the an infinite power.

Stay /lit/erary, /lit/.

>>3231495
The guy seems to be making reference to the grand hotel paradox, or something like it, so I have no idea how you're trying to school him here. If you subtract one from the infinity of points on a line it's still the same order of infinity. No need to spew what you learnt in class today as if it's relevant.

>So, 2g>g
Pic related, what are they teaching you?

>>3228393
Your friend is definitely correct. However, for either of you to be correct, you must assume that there are only finite strings of the same letter. For example, the probability could be 0 if you allow for all the monkeys to continually press the same key for all eternity.