| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
TimmyT
|
6
|
 |
|
05-09-2003 02:48 PM ET (US)
|
|
Edited by author 05-09-2003 02:48 PM
my thoughts exactly, toast.
|
| secret agent toast
|
5
|
|
|
05-09-2003 02:32 PM ET (US)
|
|
no, see, the monkeys were really trying to communicate via a tapping code; it really was s...sss...s...s...s...sss...ssss...ss Which is, decoded, 'to be or not to be'. So you see they were making a pretty good go of it, all things consitered. Just because we didn't record the right input, and just assumed that 'ssssssssss' wasn't 's...sss...ss...sss' is a error on our part.
|
| Bob R. Kenyon
|
4
|
|
|
05-09-2003 02:09 PM ET (US)
|
|
"s," huh? Sounds like they were all left-handed.
|
| librarygeek
|
3
|
|
|
05-09-2003 01:34 PM ET (US)
|
|
Six monkeys, one word processor, one month- actually I think they did pretty well just to produce a few differrent letters considering the sample size. If this really proved that (a large number, say googolplex) monkeys couldn't write a Shakespeare play in billions of years, wouldn't that mean that the origin of life could never happen without a miracle given that a self reproducing organism could never arise by chance.
|
| cypherpunks
|
2
|
|
|
05-09-2003 12:44 PM ET (US)
|
|
|
| BenGarvey
|
1
|
|
|
05-09-2003 12:42 PM ET (US)
|
|
"The work was interesting but had little scientific value, except to show that the 'infinite monkey' theory is flawed."
Is this a joke? The "infinite monkey" theory doesn't really have anything to do with monkeys. It's probability.
|
