Talk:Infinite monkey theorem
Latest comment: 3 months ago by P Aculeius in topic The monkey's pronoun
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infinite monkey theorem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Infinite monkey theorem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 31, 2004. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
The falsity of the infinite monkey theorem
Can monkeys actually type books according to true experiments? The thought experiment is wrong because monkeys make neurotic repetitive movements, thus googolplex years wouldn't suffice. The only solution is to modify the keyboard, or use few buttons with Morse-like code. But if your experiment yields more books, the deep cause is your experiment design, not the monkeys. You can use a randomizer, or a biased pseudorandomizer, or some other model and animal. Thought experiments sometimes miss a point to make a point, thus real experiments are needed. 2A02:587:4F08:EF00:8CCB:23BE:9F78:3830 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- That's beyond the point. Didlidoo (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- That point being, of course, that the monkeys are only a metaphor for random, mindless selection of letters. Randomizers, keyboards other than typewriters, or purpose-built machines of this type did not exist when this concept was developed, and would not have been understood by anyone hearing of or reading about it; typewriters were something most people could recognize and relate to (and to some extent, still are). I have no idea what "other animal" you propose to substitute, since no other animal besides humans is likely to be more suitable to the concept. I doubt most people could visualize a room full of dolphins typing away randomly. But to your point, no actual experiments are needed (though that hasn't stopped anyone from trying). It's a mathematical certainty that any text of any length will eventually be reproduced through sheer random selection of characters. But it might take an extremely long time, given a limited number of inputs by a limited number of typists, be they simian, cetacean, or crustacean... and that is the point of the "theorem": that random inputs will inevitably produce the desired results, but only with a vast quantity of time. P Aculeius (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- You perfectly articulated by point :) Didlidoo (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I thought the original poster or someone agreeing with him/her might want more articulation. Crustaceans are quite well articulated, as it happens, though perhaps not well suited for typewriters... P Aculeius (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- You perfectly articulated by point :) Didlidoo (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Picture
The picture is fun, but it’s a chimpanzee, not a monkey. —LukeSurl t c 11:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- This article is about a metaphor used to illustrate a point in mathematics. It has nothing to do with the taxonomy of the animals. Loosely speaking, "monkey" has been used to describe all simians, and this metaphor has never indicated a specific type, but is nearly always visualized using chimpanzees or something similar in appearance. That's probably because they're commonly used in contexts where the intended meaning is "sub-human intelligence" and a stereotypical caveman image isn't sub-human enough. From a practical standpoint, we can imagine chimpanzees plunking away at a typewriter, while their smaller cousins, the true monkeys, wouldn't be able to. But the main point is, the picture adequately represents the metaphor's intention, and is how it is conventionally depicted. Applying a strict taxonomic definition of "monkey" to a metaphor that has never employed it is both unnecessary and misleading. P Aculeius (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- This has been discussed several times (search "ape" in the archives). Ironically, one of the definitions for monkey is "a persistent or annoying encumbrance or problem" (Websters 9th New Collegiate, 1982). Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
The monkey's pronoun
I changed the pronoun from "it" to "they" and the edit was reverted.[1] Other articles about animals, such as Koko (gorilla) or Laika use the gendered pronouns he and she. I couldn't find a WP style guide for when the gender of the animal is not known. Does anyone know if such a guideline exist for this case? Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't something that appears to have—or would necessarily be expected to—come up in policy discussions. However, as I indicated in my edit summary, it is perfectly appropriate when referring to animals of indeterminate gender, which this is, since the monkey referred to is an abstraction with no real existence or gender. This is also consistent with the explanation here: "It is used to denote an inanimate physical object, abstract concept, situation, action, characteristic, and almost any other concept or being, including, occasionally, humans" (emphasis supplied). Note that two of the four examples given refer to human children. An entirely abstract monkey without any particular gender can just as easily be referred to as it, without using a plural pronoun for the sake of avoiding having to choose between he and she, where choosing the wrong gender or implying a lack of gender might be rude when referring to a particular human. Because we are dealing with an animal—and a hypothetical animal, at that, in a context to which gender is unknown because it's entirely irrelevant, there should be no objection to it. P Aculeius (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)