Talk:Infinite monkey theorem/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 May 2019 and 24 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Transuejames.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
probably not
Please change the image caption from: Chimpanzee seated in a typewriter to Chimpanzee probably not typing Hamlet (remember to link the "brobably not" to the "probably unlikely" page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dishype (talk • contribs) 12:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I like the "Chimpanzee probably not typing Hamlet" suggestion. I know we aren't supposed to put jokes in Wikipedia, but I've seen numerous pages using a bit of snark, especially for less serious topics like Fucking, Austria.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Possible addition to the "Almost surely" Section
Just an idea to give someone a laugh. May I suggest that after 'or "Three, Six, Nine, Twelve…"', you include the concept that the monkey could decide to type out the Wikipedia Article describing his situation. This highlights the random nature of the monkey but also suggests that, in a very meta manner, it was in fact the Infinite Monkey who wrote a Wikipedia Article on himself (not to offend the author). I know Wikipedia is not the place for jokes, but I'd argue this adds to the quality of the article rather than compromising it. Wag1Pat (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022
 | This edit request to Infinite monkey theorem has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit precludes to 1.2. Probabilities
Inclusion of the Eddington Number as the calculation for protons in the observable universe
Change X to Y if:
X: Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success.
Y: Even if every proton in the observable universe (which, according to [number|the Eddington Number] NEdd, is approximately 10^80) were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. Wag1Pat (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done with a light rephrase.
- Basedeunie042 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Mathematical surmise of never ever.
The Probability Of Monkeys Typing: https://envisionourfuture.tumblr.com/post/727987139933044736/the-probability-of-monkeys-typing KING (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Date of proof
It doesn't seem clear from the history section (or the proof section) where the proofs came from. It seems to be an idea that has evolved so clarifying when it was proved would be informative, as well as who authored the proofs. Lightbloom (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)