colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (12/16/86)
There's a classic sci-fi story, "Been a Long Long Time," by R. A. Lafferty,
about an angel who is assigned (as a punishment, and to teach him patience)
to supervise those monkeys. But they are merely required to produce the
complete works of Shakespeare--a significant (but comfortless) relaxation.
Reference? No, I don't have one; the magazine has probably been dead for
years. It might have been _Fantastic._
"The monkeys will be immune to fatigue. I cannot say the
same for you."
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@sunyabvclishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (12/19/86)
I once read a story that really unerved me several years ago. I don't remember
the name or author, but it was a short story in some science fiction
compilation.
The plot was about a man who thought of doing the "monkeys and typewriters"
experiment with a computer. What he had done was to have a computer randomly
spit out letters in hopes of achieving the same ends as the infinite number
of monkeys theory, except that the time required to end up with an intelligible
work would be MUCH shorter because the computer could spit out the characters
much faster than a finite number of monkeys with an infinite amount of time.
What happened in the end was the computer spit out a best-seller, and made the
guy rich.
This was not the end of the story, however. I won't give the end of the story
away, because for me it was a real surprise and a real shock. If anybody
knows the name and author of this short story, please post it, because it was
a really good story (or at least that is how I remember it).
--
Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu
\{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishkacolonel@sunybcs.UUCP (01/18/87)
> Put another way: the hypothesis that all the works in the British > Museum could have been created by chance is rejected. But they were created by chance! Think about the probability that all those authors would write just exactly those books! Change just one comma somewhere, and you have a different British Museum. Remember, the odds against anything that really happens are enormous. "As the principle of insufficient reason rests on ignorance, it would seem to follow that the calculus of probability was most effective when used by those who had an 'equally balanced ignorance.' However well men approximate to this ideal, philosophers and mathematicians hold themselves in higher esteem, and so the principle has fallon on lean days." --Kasner and Newman, _Mathematics and the Imagination_ -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@ubvms
ag0@k.cc.purdue.edu (Colin Jenkins) (01/22/87)
In article <1989@sunybcs.UUCP> colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: >> Put another way: the hypothesis that all the works in the British >> Museum could have been created by chance is rejected. > >But they were created by chance! Think about the probability that >all those authors would write just exactly those books! Change just >one comma somewhere, and you have a different British Museum. > >Remember, the odds against anything that really happens are enormous. > >-- >Col. G. L. Sicherman >UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel >CS: colonel@buffalo-cs >BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@ubvms Actually, Col. Sicherman brings up an interesting point. Assuming an infinite number of monkeys writing or painting (whatever) with no limit on the size of the works we would have a countably infinite event space. If it is safe to assume a continuous distribution for a probability density function representing (time) vs (accomplishing the duplication of the museum works) [is it possible to derive such a function?] then the probability of actually accomplishing this feat AT A PARTICULAR POINT in time is zero. If we are careful not to discriminate against the actual artists and grant them at LEAST as much intellectual and productional capacity as the monkeys, doesn't this imply a zero probability of getting anything done at all?? Colin (probably) DISCLAIMER!!--- I never was very good at stats, so there is probably a zero probability that anything I said made sense, so please don't flame too hard! I am however aquainted with many people who's intellect approaches that of monkeys', and accordingly I expect absoloutely nothing from them (I may qualify here too!).
rosa@cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk (Rosa Michaelson) (01/23/87)
What about Maxwell's deamon? Have you looked at the writing of George Gamov? Alas not many monkeys but an amusing chapter on very localised highly improbable but statistically based events.........
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (01/26/87)
> ... we would have a countably infinite event space. If it > is safe to assume a continuous distribution for a probability density function > representing (time) vs (accomplishing the duplication of the museum works) > [is it possible to derive such a function?] then the probability of actually > accomplishing this feat AT A PARTICULAR POINT in time is zero. ... Colin's paradox looks like a variant of one of Zeno's paradoxes. The above statement is correct--the probability that anything will happen at a particular time is nil. MORAL: Don't make dinner appointments for exact times; leave at least a few microseconds' leeway. > ... I am however aquainted with many people who's > intellect approaches that of monkeys', From which direction? Assistant: "Professor! The computers are on strike!" Professor: "What? How dare they?" [throws window open] Mechanical voices: "MORE ... INPUT! ... LESS ... OUTPUT! ..." -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@ubvms