Right back at ya… obviously.

It can be, but it isn’t.

The theorem is only true if monkeys are random. But monkeys are not random, and therefore this cannot be proved true using monkeys.

Yeah I get that, what I’m arguing is that monkey input != random input. Therefore the probably is not 1.

And the Monty Hall problem is really cool, and yes, I’ve seen it before, but it doesn’t have anything to do with this one.

No, I’m saying it’s not just improbable (if it were improbable, then yes, it would happen), I’m saying it’s impossible because of behavior.

As a small example, let’s say you wanted to type the ABC’s. However, every time you typed, your finger slid to press the key next to it as well. Then, no matter how many times you tried, you would never be able to type the ABC’s. That’s an exaggerated example of what I believe the monkeys would do. They simply would not be able to type letters at random. The way they work, they would be forced to mush buttons that do not allow for whole words.

If there was another scenario where there were about 30 boxes (one for each letter and any punctuation needed), and the monkey had to get a banana from one of the boxes, and that is what ‘typed’ the script, then yes, an infinite number of monkeys would be able to type Shakespeare. But because it’s a typewriter, I don’t think even an infinite amount would be able to.

I see what you’re saying, but I do think they would have behavioral ‘rules’ that would stop them even on an infinite time scale. It would work if monkeys were capable of pressing one letter at a time, walking away, and pressing another letter and so forth… and while that’s of course physically possible for the monkeys to do, I don’t think it’s actually possible because they are susceptible to their own behavior. Not saying they would never type one specific letter, but a better example would be the behavior of rolling their finger/hand while pressing a letter, such that a conglomeration of letters are pressed in a way that would never match a Shakespeare play.

It’s also possible that it’s not possible even on an infinite time scale. A quick example: if you asked an algorithm to choose a number, and you choose 6536639876555721, but the algorithm only chooses from the infinite number of even numbers, it will never choose your number. So for the monkeys, if they are just not ‘programmed’ to ever be able to write a whole Shakespeare play, they will not be able to even with infinite time and infinite moneys.

Soup has more force than a brick

What if that dog was a bitch? (There’s probably a better joke here with female dogs and sexism and stuff, so feel free to out do me please)

Hello Margot Robbie!

I loved my pixel 2, but hate my pixel 6. I’m switching away from pixel as soon as this one dies

Yeah but then I wouldn’t have known I was safe.

a/s/l?

I always wish it was easy to “hyperlink” parts of my sentence. So that they could hover over it and see my explanation for that part. But alas, that would be too much work.

https://youtu.be/RzA4dCT4X0I

Just in case you hadn’t seen the video

Centepides actually only have 6 legs. You can see the six real legs if you look closely at a picture. The other “legs” work like legs, but are not actually legs.

I play, and I’m not desperate (and hopefully not an idiot either). Here is my reasoning, but I’m open to ideas from people who may think differently. First, obviously, playing is losing money, just like scratch-offs. However, a winning scratch-off is not life changing money, it’s likely just making back some of the money you spent or will spend. A Powerball jackpot will allow you to actually have influence in the world. If you are someone who wins and decides to mooch off society just buying yachts and hookers and blow for the rest of your life, then it’s just wasted. But the amount of change in the world by building something that betters humanity would actually be accomplishable.

I’m Hugh Mungus

Buffalo: to puzzle or baffle; confuse; mystify

It’s 2023. Have you not done that yet?