"Charles C" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.45c03946f43616e09e4bf5850@news.povray.org...
>I do like this version a 'bit' better. :) It's interesting to wonder how
> many random arrangements it'd take before you'd spell something out.  Or,
> hmm, could there be a hidden message already?  Anybody fluent in reading
> this stuff?

...that reminds me of the chimp hitting randomly at a typewriter and coming 
up with the works of Shakespeare.... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Charles C" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
> news:web.45c03946f43616e09e4bf5850@news.povray.org...
> >I do like this version a 'bit' better. :) It's interesting to wonder how
> > many random arrangements it'd take before you'd spell something out.  Or,
> > hmm, could there be a hidden message already?  Anybody fluent in reading
> > this stuff?
>
> ...that reminds me of the chimp hitting randomly at a typewriter and coming
> up with the works of Shakespeare.... :-)
>
> Thomas

Not likely, it is an infinite number of chimps on an infinite number of
typewriters for an infinite time. If my finite memory serves me well :-)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> 
>>"Charles C" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
>>news:web.45c03946f43616e09e4bf5850@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>I do like this version a 'bit' better. :) It's interesting to wonder how
>>>many random arrangements it'd take before you'd spell something out.  Or,
>>>hmm, could there be a hidden message already?  Anybody fluent in reading
>>>this stuff?
>>
>>...that reminds me of the chimp hitting randomly at a typewriter and coming
>>up with the works of Shakespeare.... :-)
>>
>>Thomas
> 
> 
> Not likely, it is an infinite number of chimps on an infinite number of
> typewriters for an infinite time. If my finite memory serves me well :-)
> 
> Stephen
> 

This reminds me of the early Bob Newhart routine where he proposes that 
if this was ever actually implemented, there would have to be people 
monitoring the results.  In this routine, he was one of these monitors. 
  And after seeing nothing but giberish he finally runs across one 
that's more promising:  "To be or not to be, that is the gogorgenplatz..."
(or something to that effect...)     :-)

      -=- Larry -=-

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.45c0605cf43616e0f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...

>
> Not likely, it is an infinite number of chimps on an infinite number of
> typewriters for an infinite time. If my finite memory serves me well :-)
>

I stand infinitely corrected   :-)

However, (there always *is* a however!) consider the possibility 
(theoretical, I admit) within that infinite array of 
chimps+typewriters+time, to have one instance of one chimp typing out 
Shakespeare...? Hmmm...?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> news:web.45c0605cf43616e0f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> >
> > Not likely, it is an infinite number of chimps on an infinite number of
> > typewriters for an infinite time. If my finite memory serves me well :-)
> >
>
> I stand infinitely corrected   :-)
>
> However, (there always *is* a however!) consider the possibility
> (theoretical, I admit) within that infinite array of
> chimps+typewriters+time, to have one instance of one chimp typing out
> Shakespeare...? Hmmm...?
>
> Thomas

True, and perhaps we are the chimps and now the book is writ there is nought
left for us to do?




Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Among other things, "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> saw fit to write:

> Not likely, it is an infinite number of chimps on an infinite number of
> typewriters for an infinite time. If my finite memory serves me well :-)

That's not very interesting. The number of possible combinations of letters
of a give length, however huge, is finite, so an infinite number of chimps
would get whatever text in just the amount of time needed to type it
(assuming they type really randomly).

I believe it was just "a room full of chimps" or something similar.

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

Jellby <me### [at] privacynet> wrote:
> Among other things, "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> saw fit to write:
>
> > Not likely, it is an infinite number of chimps on an infinite number of
> > typewriters for an infinite time. If my finite memory serves me well :-)
>
> That's not very interesting. The number of possible combinations of letters
> of a give length, however huge, is finite, so an infinite number of chimps
> would get whatever text in just the amount of time needed to type it
> (assuming they type really randomly).
>
> I believe it was just "a room full of chimps" or something similar.
>


but for want of an argument. You could be right. On the other hand you could
be wrong. True the complete works of Shakespeare is finite but undefined, so

complete works is undefined for two reasons. Firstly the first folio was
compiled in 1623, IIRC and it consisted of 36 plays. Some of these plays

increasing. When I first saw them it was 37 plays and now it is up to 38
with another one under debate. Secondly did he write anything during his
lost years?) Your conclusion that with an infinite number of monkeys you
would get the works in the time it took to type them brings up the question
of *random*. Here I think that you could be right but again you might be
wrong. If things are truly random there is no guarantee that you ever will
get what you want. Or so I believe, I could be wrong, I have been before.
If there was only a room full of monkeys I think that you would have to
think about the possibility of time not being infinite. I could go on and I
often do :-)

interesting. I found it so. Or at least entertaining.
But we are drifting OT


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Jellby <me### [at] privacynet> wrote:
>> I believe it was just "a room full of chimps" or something similar.

Whether it's a room full of chimps typing long enough, or an infinite 
number of chimps is irrelevant.  The important part is infinity, either 
of time or of chimps.



Well, they DO take it seriously, as a maxim of probability.

> wrong. If things are truly random there is no guarantee that you ever will
> get what you want.

That's why the infinite part is important - either there are an infinite 
number of chimps, or an infinite timeframe, but either way that infinity 
throws normal probability out the window.

No matter how probable something is, as long as it is possible, throwing 
in an infinity makes it a certainty.  That is, as long as P>0, then an 
infinite number of chances will result in P=1.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > Jellby <me### [at] privacynet> wrote:
> >> I believe it was just "a room full of chimps" or something similar.
>
> Whether it's a room full of chimps typing long enough, or an infinite
> number of chimps is irrelevant.  The important part is infinity, either
> of time or of chimps.
>

>
> Well, they DO take it seriously, as a maxim of probability.
>
> > wrong. If things are truly random there is no guarantee that you ever will
> > get what you want.
>
> That's why the infinite part is important - either there are an infinite
> number of chimps, or an infinite timeframe, but either way that infinity
> throws normal probability out the window.
>
> No matter how probable something is, as long as it is possible, throwing
> in an infinity makes it a certainty.  That is, as long as P>0, then an
> infinite number of chances will result in P=1.
>
> ...Chambers

Yes Infinity is important here. When you talk about infinity common sense
flies out the window :-)
Excuse me while I move my belongings to the next even numbered room, another
bus has arrived at Hilbert's Grand Hotel.


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers wrote:
> No matter how probable something is, as long as it is possible, throwing 
> in an infinity makes it a certainty.  That is, as long as P>0, then an 
> infinite number of chances will result in P=1.

Not true if you have different kinds of infinitites. You can't put 
Aleph-one people in a hotel with Aleph-zero rooms, even if you move 
everyone to an even numbered room. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     You know it's time to trim your beard when your
     wife stops calling you Husband and starts calling
     you Husbollah.

Post a reply to this message