▲ 928 ▼ Infinite Monkey Theorem (lemmy.world) submitted 1 year ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world [M] to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) But they still would be limited to only what monkeys can actually do with typewriters given enough time or monkeys to do everything a monkey will do with a typewriter. Infinity only allows anything that can happen to happen no matter how unlikely to happen, but it doesn't allow something that has 0% likelihood to happen like a monkey turning into a cup to happen. If there are any 0% probability events necessary for the task then it wouldn't happen regardless of the number of monkeys or given time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I think we're on the same page there, I was just pointing out a limitation of the thought experiment that draws attention to the fact that infinity only allows what's improbable possible and doesn't make the impossible possible. But yeah it doesn't undermine the idea that introducing infinities gives unintuitive results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) But they still would be limited to only what monkeys can actually do with typewriters given enough time or monkeys to do everything a monkey will do with a typewriter. Infinity only allows anything that can happen to happen no matter how unlikely to happen, but it doesn't allow something that has 0% likelihood to happen like a monkey turning into a cup to happen. If there are any 0% probability events necessary for the task then it wouldn't happen regardless of the number of monkeys or given time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I think we're on the same page there, I was just pointing out a limitation of the thought experiment that draws attention to the fact that infinity only allows what's improbable possible and doesn't make the impossible possible. But yeah it doesn't undermine the idea that introducing infinities gives unintuitive results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I think we're on the same page there, I was just pointing out a limitation of the thought experiment that draws attention to the fact that infinity only allows what's improbable possible and doesn't make the impossible possible. But yeah it doesn't undermine the idea that introducing infinities gives unintuitive results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I think we're on the same page there, I was just pointing out a limitation of the thought experiment that draws attention to the fact that infinity only allows what's improbable possible and doesn't make the impossible possible. But yeah it doesn't undermine the idea that introducing infinities gives unintuitive results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
