Ah, but John. 1 in 27^16 is a big number, but infinity is more than 10^100^100 times bigger
it is indeed However, having just asked Mr Google, I've just found (be it true or not!)Ah, but John. 1 in 27^16 is a big number, but infinity is more than 10^100^100 times bigger
There are 3,695,990 characters in Shakespeare's Complete Works, and I'm going to account for 34 possible characters being our alphabet, periods, commas, colons, semicolons, question marks, exclamation points, apostrophes and spaces. Hopefully I didn't miss anything.17 Apr 2017
You would (of course) need TTUP grounding in the live circuit, with a triple-pole extractive cutout switch, in case the monkeys suddenly stopped holding hands through the letterbox..
Well, yes, if there were lots of monkeys doing it simultaneously, that would markedly reduce the 'expected' time to achieve a 'success'. However, even 'markedly reducing' a number which is 'close to infinity' still produces an answer which is still 'close to infinity' (albeit slightly less close ).Yes but if you had a near infinite number of monkeys to attend to it then it might make the problem very slightly easier IMHO
I didn't think electrons usually moved far enough to get from one monkey to another ?Passing electrons from one to t`other maybe!
Well OK then I suppose it might vary with the type of Monkey (Rhesus example) or Chimpanzees or things further up/down the evolution scale such as the age old chicken/egg problem (easy answer really as it was the egg! but hey ho!))I didn't think electrons usually moved far enough to get from one monkey to another ?
Uhmmmm - with billions or more quinetic monkeys, there could be some ';interference' issues with the wireless communicationAh I've sussed the issue, all solve, no more letter box issue .... Use quinetic monkeys
In case there are some sceptics out there, to illustrate that the real world does reflect theoretical maths, I've just undertaken a simulation of attempts to get the word "even" (plus a space) by random typing on that 27-key typewriter..... That poem starts "Even as the sun ....". To make life simple, I assumed a typewriter with just 27 keys - all the lower-case letters plus a space. Hence the probability of getting the first word (4 letters plus a space) of that first work by 'random typing' would be 1 in 27^5 - which is 1 in a bit over 14 million.
Essentially 'by definition', no algorithm can create truly random numbers, so in software they are all "pseudo-random number generators" (PRNGs). If you want to get what we believe to be truly random numbers, you have to look to physical processes, like radioactive decay. However, modern PSNGs are very close to truly random - certainly close enough for virtually all likely practical applications.Was it "Random" or "Pseudo Random" John - not that I would nit-pick about it though.
I'm not a professional programmer, either, but I've had to do a fair bit of programming in the course of my work. In case you (or anyone else) is interested, the code I wrote to do that simulation was very simple. Those reading this will probably not be familiar with the programming language I used (SAS), because it was 'near to hand', but anyone who is familiar with programming in any language should be able to understand what is going on here. In fact, the simulation itself is all within the two nested DO...END loops - just 8 lines of code. "ranuni(seed)" returns a random number between 0 and 1 from a uniform distribution and "byte(x)"returns the character corresponding the the (decimal) ASCII value specified as x. The symbol "||" concatenates two string variables ....I never became a computer programmer (feigned surprise!!!) but still I reckon I had a better idea in some little bits about things than some so called computer programmers often do - nonsense input trapping subroutines) . .... Anyway, it was great fun. But I kept me day job though.
Yes, that one is very non-intuitive, even for statisticians - but nowhere near as non-intuitive as the "Monty Hall problem" - which has had eminent academic statisticians almost "coming to blows"Sorry, I side tracked meeself - I reckoned 28 people in a room to have that expectation of at least two sharing birthdays , compared to 366 to be absolutely sure (excluding leap years etc so basing it upon 365 days in a year). So, comparing 365 to 28, I wonder if we could apply something not unsimilar here?
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local