Not The Onion

12355 readers

244 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

125

Monkeys will never type Shakespeare, study finds (bbc.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by dphile@lemm.ee to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 55 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Trash "research" and trash journalism covering it. First they find that monkeys would write Shakespeare, it would just take on average longer than the entire existence of the universe. They then try to infer that how long it takes is relevant. It is not. The calculation is vaguely interesting as a curio but the shoehorned "discussion" and interpretation to get attention is crap and another example of bad science misleading people.

It's pointless and stupid - the thought experiment itself is that infinite monkeys typing would eventually type the whole of Shakespeare. Not how long it would take. The whole point of it is that in a truly random system all known patterns should eventually emerge somewhere within it. The length of time it takes for the pattern to emerge is irrelevant as the idea is based in infinity. So for example if there is a truly random infinite multiverse then in theory all imaginable possibilities would exist somewhere within it at some point.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The whole point of it is that in a truly random system all known patterns should eventually emerge somewhere within it.

So pi (probably) has this property. There are some joke compression programs around this (they don't really work because it takes up more space to store where something in pi is, than storing the thing itself). But it is funny, to think that pi could theoretically hold every past, present, and future piece of information within those digits after the decimal.

https://github.com/philipl/pifs

https://ntietz.com/blog/why-we-cant-compress-messages-with-pi/

[–] addie@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago

Also interesting is the notion of 'Kolmogorov Complexity' - what is the shortest programme that could produce a given output? Worst case for a truly random sequence would just be to copy it out, but a programme that outputs eg. a million digits of pi can actually be quite short. As can a programme that outputs a particular block cypher for an empty input. In general, it is very difficult to decide how long a programme is needed to produce a given output, and what the upper limit of compression could be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity