516

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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

The statement isn't about "A" monkey. It's about an infinite amount of monkeys.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SlapnutsGT@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But what if we had infinite monkeys 🤔

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

There was a plank computer post here last couple of days. It showed an atomic sized computer performing one crack attempt every 10^-44 seconds would take a 95 character alphabet 100 years to crack a 121 character password.

Monkeys take up 1m^3. 10^105 bigger than a plank length. Typing 120wpm is 10^43 slower. Ignoring punctuation and spaces and capitalization, a 26 character alphabet allows for about 52 more characters than a 95 character alphabet.

Bottom line, monkeys can't come anywhere close to being able to crack a 100 character password from a 26 character alphabet.

[-] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

Okay but here me out, what if we 10^43 more monkeys to balance out the speed?

In fact, let's push this to an extreme. We get enough monkeys that their mass turns them all into one black hole. Inside the black hole, the laws of physics get all fucked. Next we need to somehow dissolve the event horizon as explained in This Kurzgesagt video. Once that happens and we are left with a bare singularity, anything can pop out of it, including a copy of Hamlet.

The monkeys, however, will very likely be dead.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

How about 4 monkeys in parallel?

[-] Waldowal@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Yes, and add an Agile framework. Extreme Monkey typing.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

What about monkey AI to get ahead using lower paid monkeys?

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Switch to AMD. More monkeys.

[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I have a way to make it work.

Have the monkey write down a single character. Just one. 29/30 of the time, it won't be the same character as the first one in Shakespeare's complete works; discard that sheet of paper, then try again. 1/30 of the time the monkey will type out the right character; when they do it, keep that sheet of paper and make copies out of it.

Now, instead of giving a completely blank sheet to the monkey, give them one of those copies. And let them type the second character. If different from the actual second character in Shakespeare's works, discard that sheet and give him a new copy (with the right 1st char still there - the monkey did type it out!). Do this until the monkey types the correct second character. Keep that sheet with 2 correct chars, make copies out of it, and repeat the process for the third character.

And then the fourth, the fifth, so goes on.

Since swapping sheets all the time takes more time than letting the monkey go wild, let's increase the time per typed character (right or wrong), from 1 second to... let's say, 60 times more. A whole minute. And since the monkey will type junk 29/30 of the time, it'll take around 30min to type the right character.

It would take even longer, right? Well... not really. Shakespeare's complete works have around 5 million characters, so the process should take 5*10⁶ * 30min = 2.5 million hours, or 285 years.

But we could do it even better. This approach has a single monkey doing all the work; the paper has 200k of them. We could split Shakespeare's complete works into 200k strings of 25 chars each, and assign each string to a monkey. Each monkey would complete their assignment, on average, after 12h30min; some will take a bit longer, but now we aren't talking about the thermal death of the universe or even centuries, it'll take at most a few days.


Why am I sharing this? I'm not invalidating the paper, mind you, it's cool maths.

I've found this metaphor of monkeys typing Shakespeare quite a bit in my teen years, when I still arsed myself to discuss with creationists. You know, the sort of people who thinks that complex life can't appear due to random mutations, just like a monkey can't type the full works of Shakespeare.

Complex life is not the result of a single "big" mutation, like a monkey typing the full thing out of the blue; it involves selection and inheritance, as the sheets of paper being copied or discarded.

And just like assigning tasks to different monkeys, multiple mutations can pop up independently and get recombined. Not just among sexual beings; even bacteria can transmit genes horizontally.

Already back then (inb4 yes, I was a weird teen...) I developed the skeleton of this reasoning. Now I just plopped the numbers that the paper uses, and here we go.

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day 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). 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.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that’s why we need at least... two of them.

load more comments (30 replies)
[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

This is a false flag study to undermine public support for mathematics research!

Strong entry for an Ig Nobel Prize if nothing else.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 27 points 1 day ago

it is also somewhat misleading

...what? No it isn't. Restricting the premise from infinite to any finite amount of time completely negates it. That doesn't prove it's "misleading", it proves anyone that thinks it does has no idea what they're talking about.

[-] style99@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

This sort of study shows you more how mathematicians think than how science or philosophy works.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I always heard that it was an infinite number of monkeys, not just one. So one of them might get the job done in time.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

One of them is mathematically guaranteed to get the job done in time.

In fact - and here's the trippy part - an infinite number of them is mathematically guaranteed to get the job done in time.

[-] dudenas@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 day ago

They forgot the lifespan of the monkey, those thought experimenters.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
516 points (92.3% liked)

Technology

59020 readers
2998 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS