4 ms·
The paper doesn’t say that either. They only call the original theorem misleading. I understood that their point is the same as yours - that infinity won’t happ
by thih9 2y ago
The paper doesn’t say that either. They only call the original theorem misleading. I understood that their point is the same as yours - that infinity won’t happen in a finite time period.
> The long-established result of the Infinite Monkeys Theorem is correct, but misleading.
> Non-trivial text generation during the lifespan of our universe is almost certainly impossible.
> The Finite Monkeys case shows there will never be sufficient resources to generate Shakespeare.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773186324001014 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277318632...
- chasd00 2y agoI don’t see how the original is misleading. The word “infinite” isn’t hidden or anything… unless the definition of infinite is misleading but I think it’s use here is pretty clear.
- thih9 2y ago“Infinity” on its own is clear, but in tandem with monkeys it could get confusing. If you remember that a monkey here is also a theoretical construct then I guess all is fine. But otherwise monkeys need at least a universe to function and that is finite. Perhaps it would have been seen as less confusing if it was a demon[1] that enters random letters instead. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(thought_experiment) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(thought_experiment)