I Infinite Monkey Theorem Tests?

  • Thread starter greswd
  • Start date
703
16
I'm curious if anyone has ever simulated the infinite monkeys on typewriters using a computer, and managed to generate short sentences or phrases that have appeared in books/print media before.

That would demonstrate the effectiveness of the infinite monkey theorem.
 

phyzguy

Science Advisor
4,209
1,192
What would be the point? Do you have any grounds to doubt the fact that given an infinite number of sequences, any desired sequence will appear?
 

mathman

Science Advisor
7,662
382
The major problem is that the probability, although not 0, is very small for even a simple 5 letter word, [itex](\frac{1}{26})^5=8.4\times 10^{-8}[/itex], that a simulation would take a lot of computer time and wouldn't add much to what we know.
 
703
16
What would be the point? Do you have any grounds to doubt the fact that given an infinite number of sequences, any desired sequence will appear?
Hey, relax man.:cool: I was just curious if anyone has ever tried it out big time. Just to see what it looks like when attempted practically.

I have no doubts, but it would help make a case against dumb anti-evolutionists.
 
Last edited:
33,010
8,784
I have no doubts, but it would help make a case against dumb anti-evolutionists.
It would not. It would reinforce the misconception that evolution would be random. It is not. Every single mutation occurs randomly, but the same is true for each individual photon from the sun reaching your eye. You can clearly see the sun, and you don't have to rely on chance to do so.

Producing a billion random letters will give you a few 5-letter words (and many shorter words), but where is the point?
 
703
16

PeroK

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
9,515
3,496
perhaps so


my question was just about whether anyone had attempted to do so.

I've already seen this guy, http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/09/a-few-million-monkeys-randomly-recreate-shakespeare, but he only runs it in chunks of 9 characters.
It's not clear to me how you keep the monkeys concentrating on typing. They might turn the typewriters over and/or pull the paper out. Or worse. And, who decides when to change the paper? Or, do the monkeys do that at random as well? I think the monkeys would all be dead before they got even one sonnet beween them.
 
703
16
It's not clear to me how you keep the monkeys concentrating on typing. They might turn the typewriters over and/or pull the paper out. Or worse. And, who decides when to change the paper? Or, do the monkeys do that at random as well? I think the monkeys would all be dead before they got even one sonnet beween them.
haha very funny. I already said "simulated" though.

also this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/may/09/science.arts
 
33,010
8,784
but he only runs it in chunks of 9 characters.
Adding a tenth character would mean he needs a factor 26 more computing power. Computing power is not free.
 
703
16
Adding a tenth character would mean he needs a factor 26 more computing power. Computing power is not free.
I know, and that wasn't my question.

Though I believe no one has upstaged Jesse Anderson so far.
 
The major problem is that the probability, although not 0, is very small for even a simple 5 letter word, [itex](\frac{1}{26})^5=8.4\times 10^{-8}[/itex], that a simulation would take a lot of computer time and wouldn't add much to what we know.
"Choose your battles wisely!"
 

FactChecker

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
4,981
1,753
The odds and expected time required to get any phrase you specify is easy to calculate. There would be no point in running a simulation that is only fast enough to do pathetically small examples.
 

jim mcnamara

Mentor
3,525
1,737
Have you ever seen the expression 'a fool's errand'? This is one. That is what everyone is telling you in polite terms, @PeroK with some potty humor. The fact that it is potty humor should tell you a lot about what his opinion is. Please let this thread die and fade away.
 
Last edited:

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,936
2,924
I have no doubts, but it would help make a case against dumb anti-evolutionists.
As @mfb said, randomness and big numbers are not a good model for biological evolution. Evolution is based on complexity and self-organization. A good mathematical model for this sort of phenomena is the Conway game of life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

For those who want also to enjoy the Conway game of life, I recommend:
 

FactChecker

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
4,981
1,753
It would not.
I think it greatly strengthens the case for evolution. The survival selection process is not worth as much if there is not a great variety of options to select from.
It would reinforce the misconception that evolution would be random. It is not.
Just because an important part is random does not mean that the whole thing is random.
Every single mutation occurs randomly, but the same is true for each individual photon from the sun reaching your eye. You can clearly see the sun, and you don't have to rely on chance to do so.
Clearly if it was not random and deterministic (like standing in a closed room) so that no photons reached your eyes, you would not see the sun.
Producing a billion random letters will give you a few 5-letter words (and many shorter words), but where is the point?
Because there is a survival selection process.
 
33,010
8,784
Just because an important part is random does not mean that the whole thing is random.
Exactly, but looking for phrases in random letters gives the impression that the whole thing would be random. English has fixed rules and every deviation is a mistake, this is completely different from evolution.
Clearly if it was not random and deterministic (like standing in a closed room) so that no photons reached your eyes, you would not see the sun.
You missed my point.
 
703
16
Have you ever seen the expression 'a fool's errand'? This is one. That is what everyone is telling you in polite terms, @PeroK with some potty humor. The fact that it is potty humor should tell you a lot about what his opinion is. Please let this thread die and fade away.
An errand at what cost? I'm just asking if anyone happens to know of something (infinite monkey test), if someone is aware, they'll give me an answer and I'll be happy. If not then I just get no answers. I don't see why I'm being impolite, neither do I see any reason for you to be upset. As I have already mentioned in #11.

also, I don't think that that was PeroK's intention.
 

FactChecker

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
4,981
1,753
I've already seen this guy, http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/09/a-few-million-monkeys-randomly-recreate-shakespeare, but he only runs it in chunks of 9 characters.
If this is just seeing if 9 random characters appear in any of the Shakespeare works, you can see that this attempt is a tiny, tiny fraction of what the quote implies. It is doing something much more simple than the quote. Carrying that simplification to the extreme, I could limit myself to 1 character length and claim that all of Shakespeare was recreated as soon as all 26 characters have occurred. That would only take a millisecond on a computer.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Infinite Monkey Theorem Tests?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Infinite Monkey Theorem Tests?

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
6K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top