 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> Yep, completely missing the point: it's just a thought experiment of
>> sorts. They should get more luck from a computer simulation with
>> cellular automata and let it run for a few millenia on common alphabet.
>> Eventually scanning through the generated texts we could see out of
>> order streams resembling the complete works, mangled among gibberish.
>
> I think sampling the noise produced by a resistor would be a better
> way of simulating the "monkeys".
BTW, I think there's the complete works of Shakespeare among the
billions of usenet posts since its inception. Google Groups might index
it. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, I think there's the complete works of Shakespeare among the
> billions of usenet posts since its inception. Google Groups might index
> it. :)
But wouldn't that be more akin to Intelligent Design? ;)
(Ok, I gave the average internet poster too much credit by implying that
it has a higher intelligence than a monkey... ;) )
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Yep, completely missing the point: it's just a thought experiment of
> > sorts. They should get more luck from a computer simulation with
> > cellular automata and let it run for a few millenia on common alphabet.
> > Eventually scanning through the generated texts we could see out of
> > order streams resembling the complete works, mangled among gibberish.
>
> I think sampling the noise produced by a resistor would be a better
> way of simulating the "monkeys".
OMG, I misread that as 'stimulating' o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (Ok, I gave the average internet poster too much credit by implying that
> it has a higher intelligence than a monkey... ;) )
WIN!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3013959.stm
"...using it as a lavatory..."
Now if they aimed at the keyboard, there's _some_ hope!
--
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Given that truly random sequences are normal, and in a normal sequence
> every block of a particular length occurs with equal probability, and
> we're talking an infinite sequence, it follows that the bard is in there
> somewhere. If I'm not mistaken about the math of it.
What's a "truly random" sequence?
I think I know what you mean, because I used to think the same, but
that's just my bias - I don't think there's any mathematical backing. Or
rather, the "truly random" is just yet another distribution like the
Gaussian, etc.
(And be careful when you say Normal. The distribution called "normal"
in probability is the Gaussian distribution, which I think is not what
you meant).
--
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> One monkey and an infinite amount of time is closer, but still not a
> guarantee.
>
> A true evenly-distributed random number generator and an infinite amount
> of time is a lot, lot closer to fulfilling the claim, and the probability
> of the works coming up is unlimitedly high, but there's still no absolute
> guarantee.
Heh heh. I felt this would create an argument.
First, don't say "unlimitedly high" The upper limit is 1. ;-) I think
you mean that it gets arbitrarily close to 1, but only hits 1 in the
infinite limit.
Personally, I've always had two problems with probability:
1) Given a continuous distribution, the probability of each individual
point is 0. I mean, if someone asked me to come up with a number between
0 and 1, and I said pi/4, then there was "some" chance that I'd pick it,
right? If it were 0, then I couldn't have said that.
2) The monkey problem is isomorphic to this one: If I have an unbiased
coin (and assume the outcome _is_ random, and not related to chaos -
such as the force I hit it with, etc), and I keep flipping it, is it
possible that I can get a continuous string of heads indefinitely?
Intuition tells me yes. I just can't see any physical reason why I
_have_ to get a tails at some point.
Yet _every_ single person - mathematician, probabilist, or otherwise
says the answer is no because the probability of such an event happening
is 0 in the limit to infinity. If you do 1 minus that, you get that the
probability of a tails appearing at _some_ point is 1. In fact, you're
the _first_ person I've seen who has the same dilemma with this problem
as I do.
They're mathematics, as far as probability theory goes, is valid.
The question is then, "Is their theory valid with respect to this
universe?"
For whatever reason, I've always viewed math to be "independent" of the
universe, but probability and statistics should conform to it. In a
sense, I view statistics to be more like a "science" than math. The
reason is that whenever someone comes to me with a probability scenario
and his result is different from mine, I always appeal to a computer
simulation as the ultimate judge (ignoring that the RNG is not random
enough...). I don't care how valid his logic may sound, but if the
computer (or the world) gives a different answer, and if my simulation
is sound, then he's wrong. The ultimate criterion is experiment - not
logic. Just as in science.
That criterion doesn't work here. I can't simulate anything to infinity.
I think at the end of the day it's a philosophical question. One of
those things that whichever stance you take won't affect anything in the
real world. I very strongly suspect, though, that probability theory
states that given infinite time, a single monkey on a single keyboard
hitting the keys with, say, uniform randomness will somewhere in that
string produce the works of Shakespeare. The real question is how you
interpret "will".
Oh, and BTW, I was discussing this very same "coin" problem just a few
days ago. And I realized that in fact, problems 1) and 2) are identical.
It's quite simple to see:
Let 0 represent heads, and 1 represent tails. Flip a coin indefinitely,
and write the sequence in order:
001011100011
What you get is essentially a binary expansion of a number between 0
and 1, inclusive. It's a 1-1 correspondence. Thus, the probability of
getting _any_ fixed infinite sequence (be it all heads or HTHTHTHTHT...
or whatever) is the probability of getting its representation as a
number in a uniformly continuous distribution from 0 to 1 - which is 0.
So in summary, if the whole monkey thing bothers you, then the fact
that probabilities of points in continuous distributions being zero
should bother you as well.
--
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Since there is an infinite amount of different finite sequences of
> letters, the probability of one specific sequence (in this case the works
> of Shakespeare) to appear is, mathematically speaking, zero.
If you _specify_ exactly some sequence containing Shakespeare's works,
then yes - it is 0 to get that particular sequence.
However, there are _infinitely_ many infinite sequences that contain
the works of Shakespeare...
--
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3013959.stm
>
> "...using it as a lavatory..."
>
> Now if they aimed at the keyboard, there's _some_ hope!
Only if they have very dense number twos.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> What's a "truly random" sequence?
This is a well-defined concept. It means that (basically) the probability
of you being able to predict the next item in the sequence is unchanged by
any knowledge you might have.
> I think I know what you mean, because I used to think the same, but
> that's just my bias - I don't think there's any mathematical backing.
That's what I'm saying - I think there is.
> rather, the "truly random" is just yet another distribution like the
> Gaussian, etc.
No, you can have any distribution you want and not be random. You can have
any distribution you want and be random, too. Random is about predictability
with better-than-the-distribution-suggests accuracy.
If I say "the first two characters my generator output were 'th'", you'd
have no idea what the third letter is if it's random, but a pretty good idea
what it might be if I said "it's an english sentence." That sort of
predictability.
No matter what you know, and no matter how often you've rolled the dice,
you're not going to guess the next side with >1/6 probability (assuming
perfect dice, of course). Any computer PRNG dice rolling can be easily
predicted simply by looking at the PRNG and doing the math.
> (And be careful when you say Normal. The distribution called "normal"
> in probability is the Gaussian distribution, which I think is not what
> you meant).
I meant what are called "normal numbers" in math, not normal statistical
distributions. Check wikipedia.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
