The question that everyone has been dying to know has been answered. Finally! What will scientists study next?

  • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I think the point is less about any kind of route to Hamlet, and more about the absurdity of infinite tries in a finite space(time). There are a finite (but extremely large) number of configurations of English characters in a work the length of Hamlet. If you have truly an infinite number of attempts (monkeys, time, or both are actually infinite) and the trials are all truly random (every character is guaranteed to have the same chance as every other) then you will necessarily arrive at that configuration eventually.

    As far as your process, of procedurally generating each letter one by one until you have the completed works, we actually have a monkey who more or less did that already. His name is William.

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Humans are apes, apes are monkeys, paraphyletic groups are bullshit.

        • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          To be entirely fair, apes aren’t monkeys. I don’t think that particular distinction is really all that relevant to the discussion, but technically…

          • Klear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            26 minutes ago

            Traditionally, all animals in the group now known as simians are counted as monkeys except the apes. Thus monkeys, in that sense, constitute an incomplete paraphyletic grouping; however, in the broader sense based on cladistics, apes (Hominoidea) are also included, making the terms monkeys and simians synonyms in regard to their scope.