Programmer has fun with monkeys typing Shakespeare theory
September 28, 2011 by Bob Yirka
(PhysOrg.com) -- Sometimes you just have to shake your head at some experiments done in the name of science, and go with the flow, or as Jesse Anderson puts it on his blog, Keep Calm and Carry On. Hes conducting an experiment, for fun, to see if he can reproduce some part of the old philosophy question of whether putting infinite numbers of monkeys before infinite numbers of typewriters, working indefinitely, would at some point result in the reproduction of the entire works of Shakespeare. Andersons efforts have created quite a stir on Internet, though for different reasons. Some see the humor in his approach, others point out how his efforts arent really proving anything at all.
Anderson isnt testing the theory with real monkeys, that whole idea was pretty much laid to rest when researchers a while back gave a group of monkeys a keyboard and after month of effort found they had little more than an affinity for the letter S and disdain for modern contrivances (they urinated on it). Instead hes using virtual monkeys on computers and a mathematical algorithm to pick out letter sequences typed at random.
He started last month, using Amazon's SC2 cloud computing system and has already put together one of the Bards poems, though it is difficult to ascertain from the experiment just what exactly is being proved. That typing nine random characters as a group will eventually reproduce a nine letter sequence that duplicates nine letters of something Shakespeare once wrote? That piecing such sequences together will eventually result in the whole work being reproduced? Interesting, but hardly science. But then, Anderson, a homespun programmer, clearly isnt trying to shake up the world. Hes just trying to have some fun.
This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Less Technical Explanation
This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Infinite Monkey Technical Discussion
Whats perhaps more interesting are the reactions to his efforts from bloggers and reporters for various media and science outlets, especially those that seem to want to point out how proving the theory right or wrong would take more time than we humans will ever have; which seems premature, when you consider that the theory does say something about using an infinite number of monkeys after all. Surely using some bit of calculus would show that as the number of monkeys approaches infinity, the number of completed works would be go up pretty quickly as well. Seems to me if you went that route, you could have the whole job done before breakfast. At any rate, the whole point is rather moot, isnt it? After all, does it really matter if monkeys typing randomly could randomly reproduce anything all? A more important question would seem to be, if you could get monkeys to type, wouldnt they eventually, given enough time, tell us all what they really think of us and our crazy use of them for our own experimental purposes?© 2011 PhysOrg.com
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Ideas to mitigate risk of 911 calls being misdirected
May 24, 2012
-
Live scribe pen?
May 10, 2012
-
Shallow water flow simulation
May 07, 2012
-
Tablet for taking notes?
May 05, 2012
-
Best fit tablet for me?
May 05, 2012
-
Measure of Informaton
May 04, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Computing & Technology
More news stories
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
9 hours ago |
5 / 5 (1) |
3
Probability of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents is higher than expected: study
Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number ...
Technology / Energy & Green Tech
May 22, 2012 |
3.6 / 5 (22) |
56
|
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
HyperSolar shows dirty water no barrier to power world
(Phys.org) -- The Santa Barbara, California, company, HyperSolar, is set to transparently share the ups and downs of its research experiences toward the companys ultimate vision, successfully producing ...
Tesla to launch electric sedan in US on June 22
Tesla Motors said Tuesday it would begin deliveries of "the world's first premium electric sedan" on June 22, slightly ahead of schedule.
Technology / Energy & Green Tech
May 22, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (12) |
18
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
Almost half of new vets seek disability
(AP) -- America's newest veterans are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate, claiming to be the most medically and mentally troubled generation of former troops the nation has ever seen.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Infinity rant aside, I thought it was hilarious that someone tried to get actual monkeys to do this and only got a couple pages of the letter S and some destroyed type writers. -- not in this article, but it was fluff on a similar article I read off google news yesterday.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
FMfbrestel... I too was laughing at a cage full of monkeys peeing on a some typewriters. That's pretty random.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
http://youtu.be/JcSUWP0QNeY
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
10 million years, perhaps?
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (16)
Idiot. You CANNOT approach infinity. Calculus will not help.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
George -- yeah, thats the point. It is pointless. He's just got some extra time and money and thought it would be fun to recreate Shakespeare's work using random number generators.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Calling someone an idiot got you some downvotes? I'm shocked!
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Maybe you've heard the saying: you can't teach a dog physics. By the same notion, maybe we're just not wired to go beyond a certain capacity.
So, making a computer crunch out certain works by chance alone is pointless to the nature of the "theory."
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
That said, you could put every monkey that has ever existed in front of a typewriter for the entire duration of his life, and you would probably not even get a paragraph of Shakespeare. And if this guy wasn't generating 9 digits and checking to see if they fit ANYWHERE in the text, he wouldnt be anywhere close either.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No. This is an artificial selection model. If words are generated that are in the story, they stay. Eventually, it collects all the words in the story. There are a finite number of words.
Sep 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Sep 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Sep 29, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I'm tellin' ya, play it straight like everyone else does. There's a sucker born every infinity.
Sep 29, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Oct 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Oct 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Oct 07, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
No, you cannot LITERALLY approach infinity, but the person who said it originally did not mean it to be taken literally, more as a figure of speech.
You cannot approach infinity because if you start counting 1, 2, 3... you might say you are approaching infinity but you are not, because regardless of what number you count to you are always the same distance away from infinity... you are always infinite distance away from infinity.
Oct 07, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
It's much simpler than that.
Anything that can possibly be stored on a computer and therefore encoded in binary, can be arrived at simply by counting.
Say for example you want to make every possible combination of a 2x2 black and white image, you can calculate the number of possibilities by determining the bit length necessary to represent ONE such image and then raising 2 to that power. So if you know a 2x2x2 (2x2 B&W) image requires 1 bit per pixel * 4 pixels you know ONE such image can be represented in 4 bits (ignoring file format headers and stuff). So if you take 2^4 you have the total number of POSSIBLE images of that format, which is 16...
Oct 07, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
But who cares about a tiny black and white image? Say you want to find the total number of images that can be represented in 1920x1080 HD resolution with a 24bit color depth? You do the same thing, determine how many bits it takes to represent that image and raise 2 to that power. 1920x1080 pixels is 2,073,600 pixels times 24 bits per pixel = 49,766,400... so 2^49,766,400 is the TOTAL number of images that can be represented at HD resolution. That's a HUGE number, but the important thing to note is that it is finite and the entire set can be generated by nothing more than COUNTING.... Think about what it means to be able to generate all possible images at HD resolution... you would have pictures of everyone who will ever exist in all possible...
Oct 07, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
poses, all possible outfits, all possible hair styles etc... but not only that you will have images of everyTHING that will ever exist, of every vehicle that will ever be invented, of every building that will ever be built, of every animal that will ever evolve into existence. Furthermore, you will have images of all those things that will NEVER exists as well. You will have every possible image of every possible thing that could ever possibly exist... and the number is NOT infinite, it is finite, due to the resolution restriction.
This is just images, but e-books, music, movies, etc are all stored in binary and could all be generated in exactly the same way. A music file of a certain bitrate and a certain length is a certain number of bytes and every possible one that could ever exist could be generated by an algorithm as simple as:
for(x = 0; x < BITLENGTH; x*)
{
Save_X();
}
*physorg won't accept the plus plus here for some reason...