Infinite Monkey Theorem Tests?

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of simulating the infinite monkeys on typewriters using a computer to generate short phrases or sentences that have appeared in books or print media. However, the probability of success is very low and it would require a lot of computing power. Some people believe that such a simulation would support the concept of evolution, while others argue that randomness is not the only factor in evolution and that it is based on complexity and self-organization. Ultimately, the discussion concludes that while randomness plays a role in evolution, it is not the sole determining factor.
  • #1
greswd
764
20
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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?
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Igael
  • #4
phyzguy said:
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:
  • #5
greswd said:
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?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #7
greswd said:
perhaps somy 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.
 
  • #8
PeroK said:
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
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #10
greswd said:
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.
 
  • #11
mfb said:
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.
 
  • #12
mathman said:
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!"
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #13
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.
 
  • #14
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:
  • #15
greswd said:
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:
 
  • #16
mfb said:
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.
 
  • #17
FactChecker said:
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.
FactChecker said:
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.
 
  • #18
jim mcnamara said:
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.
 
  • #20
greswd said:
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.
 

1. What is the Infinite Monkey Theorem?

The Infinite Monkey Theorem states that if a monkey were to randomly type on a typewriter for an infinite amount of time, it would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare or any other given text. This theorem is often used as a thought experiment to illustrate the concept of probability and randomness.

2. How is the Infinite Monkey Theorem tested?

The Infinite Monkey Theorem cannot be tested in a literal sense, as it would require an infinite amount of time. However, scientists have conducted experiments using computer programs or real monkeys typing on a keyboard to simulate the theorem. These experiments aim to show the probability of a random process producing a specific outcome.

3. What is the significance of the Infinite Monkey Theorem?

The Infinite Monkey Theorem has no practical significance in the scientific world. It is a theoretical concept used to illustrate the concept of randomness and the potential for unlikely events to occur. It has also been used to demonstrate the limitations of probability and the importance of context in interpreting results.

4. Has the Infinite Monkey Theorem ever been proven?

No, the Infinite Monkey Theorem has not been proven, nor can it be proven due to its infinite nature. However, the concept has been explored and tested through simulations and experiments, which have shown that while it is technically possible for a monkey to randomly produce a specific text, the probability of this happening is extremely low.

5. How does the Infinite Monkey Theorem relate to real-world scenarios?

The Infinite Monkey Theorem is often used as a metaphor for the randomness and unpredictability of certain events in the real world. It can also be applied to fields such as genetics, where random mutations can lead to unexpected outcomes. However, it is important to remember that the theorem is a theoretical concept and should not be taken as an accurate representation of real-world processes.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
979
  • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
652
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top