The assertion that the infinite monkeys theorum has been disproved seems incorrect. Searches for the named scientist in conjuction with monkey also fail.
IOW, I suspect the entire article is garbage. I will admit that this is based on the fact the the only easily checkable statement appears to be factually incorrect, but if it's wrong where you can check, what should you believe about the places where you can't check?
There's nothing to be disproved. The submitter is just showing ignorance. I was able to find a commencement address by Arno Penzias where he shows the audience what a staggeringly large amount of time we are talking about when we talk about monkeys (or computers) randomly recreating text of any appreciable size. Tip to the submitter: Don't use phrases like "mathematically impossible" unless you really know what you are talking about. Slashdot readers fall all over themselves in their hurry to assert their superiority in these kinds of cases.
Well...ok then. "Statistically impossible" might be a better choice.
A (smallish) finite number of monkeys would be worse than a computer program to generate every possible text, since the monkeys rely on randomness and will repeat a lot of stuff, where an infinite number of monkeys will generate it in as long as it takes to pound out ~100,000 keys at random.
Still, the bottleneck is the evaluation function to sort out not just intelligible plays, but high-quality ones, applicable in both scenarios. This me
It's worse than that. The entire basis of the "infinite monkeys theorum" is that given enough random chances even highly improbable things occur. So he was not only wrong, he didn't even understand what he was describing. So why should he be believed where he can't be checked?
Memory fault -- core...uh...um...core... Oh dammit, I forget!
I am not able to find that disproof (Score:5, Insightful)
The assertion that the infinite monkeys theorum has been disproved seems incorrect. Searches for the named scientist in conjuction with monkey also fail.
IOW, I suspect the entire article is garbage. I will admit that this is based on the fact the the only easily checkable statement appears to be factually incorrect, but if it's wrong where you can check, what should you believe about the places where you can't check?
Re:I am not able to find that disproof (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My use of 'mathematically impossible' was incorrect. A different term would have proven better. Thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
Well...ok then. "Statistically impossible" might be a better choice.
A (smallish) finite number of monkeys would be worse than a computer program to generate every possible text, since the monkeys rely on randomness and will repeat a lot of stuff, where an infinite number of monkeys will generate it in as long as it takes to pound out ~100,000 keys at random.
Still, the bottleneck is the evaluation function to sort out not just intelligible plays, but high-quality ones, applicable in both scenarios. This me
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. The entire basis of the "infinite monkeys theorum" is that given enough random chances even highly improbable things occur. So he was not only wrong, he didn't even understand what he was describing. So why should he be believed where he can't be checked?