18 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Brother EdwinNO. But if you employed the same methods as used in the current silly craze of the "Divinci Code", you could say he did. And it would only take about a decade if the chimp typed away real good and fast.
If chimps were on typewriters for infinaty would they really write skakesphere?
Line em' up, and create meaning from letters. Ok. That's powerful. It just loses it's meaning when the lines are artificial and arbitrary.
18 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Brother EdwinNo, because it is a one dimensional version of the "problem" that we cannot predict the numbers computers will produce, when presenting us the results they get when we ask them to give us the next unknown series that form the ....... (difficult English word which I cannot remember, but RC knows all about) of the number Pi.
If chimps were on typewriters for infinaty would they really write skakesphere?
Especially for you RC: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html
Pi will also never produce the works of Shakespeare, if we would give codes, meaning the letters of the alphabet , to the digits or pairs of digits.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusSorry? did I miss something?
Shhhhhhh. You're not supposed to point out glaring holes in evolution, damn it.
Read your atheist hand book.
What does a chimp on a typewriter have to do with evolution?
Why not ask the "humans" who invented and use them?
Or did I miss something? Are not evolved things like us allowed our own inventions?
Or to be more sarcastic... show the "revelation" where god showed us how to invent a "metal hinged joint" which allowed us to invent the "typewriter". Did I miss something here?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyJust because you have a lot of time doesn't mean something has to happen. That's so lame. Besides, earth didn't have a lot of time.
Sorry? did I miss something?
What does a chimp on a typewriter have to do with evolution?
Why not ask the "humans" who invented and use them?
Or did I miss something? Are not evolved things like us allowed our own inventions?
Or to be more sarcastic... show the "revelation" where god showed us how to invent a "metal hinged joint" which allowed us to invent the "typewriter". Did I miss something here?
Odd how species appeared fully developed at one point and there was a mass extinction at another point, eh? Must be a coincidence.
19 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Jay PeateaBro,
According to one website humans and chimps share 99.4% dna, although considering the typo's in your post you might expect to score higher 🙂
Maybe you should mention in your profile why your spelling is the way it is. It becomes a bit boring to read the remarks about it over and over again.
.... and it can be easy for you the next time someone makes a remark about it. You can simply react by refering to your profile stating: "Please read my profile."
How's that proposal ?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou offer a straw man argument.
Just because you have a lot of time doesn't mean something has to happen. That's so lame. Besides, earth didn't have a lot of time.
Odd how species appeared fully developed at one point and there was a mass extinction at another point, eh? Must be a coincidence.
Would not it make better sense to ask, "Why did God forsake us to such a silly existence?"
But forgive me. One bad argument deserves another.
Do I have a lot of time? Wow! I'll have to think on that. I don't think you are correct in that. I will be dead within twenty years. Prolly. Maybe within five.
Why didn't earth have a lot of what I lack? A lot of time? You make a really weird assertion and fail to explain it. Earth has had 5.5 billion years and has twice that much remaining.
Which species "appeared fully developed"? Have you been going back in the time machine again? Are you that dogs "boy"? Thought not.
Mr. Peabody says, "When my boy returned through the portal, I turned off the way-back machine and said, enough is enough. Until next time."
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's a rather bold statement. Have you managed to discern a pattern in the digits of pi which precludes the appearance of the complete works of Shakespeare?
Pi will also never produce the works of Shakespeare, if we would give codes, meaning the letters of the alphabet , to the digits or pairs of digits.
If I get hold of a random string of characters of a suitable size, the probability that they spell out the play 'Hamlet' is pretty small, but greater than zero. However, the probability than 'Hamlet' wouldn't appear as consecutive characters somewhere in an infinite random sequence is 0.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by AcolyteLet me guess. You and RC have been chewing the fat or the suds?
That's a rather bold statement. Have you managed to discern a pattern in the digits of pi which precludes the appearance of the complete works of Shakespeare?
If I get hold of a random string of characters of a suitable size, the probability that they spell out the play 'Hamlet' is pretty small, but greater than zero. However, the probability than ' ...[text shortened]... mlet' wouldn't appear as consecutive characters somewhere in an infinite random sequence is 0.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by AcolyteSince SVW has asked us to discuss this:
That's a rather bold statement. Have you managed to discern a pattern in the digits of pi which precludes the appearance of the complete works of Shakespeare?
If I get hold of a random string of characters of a suitable size, the probability that they spell out the play 'Hamlet' is pretty small, but greater than zero. However, the probability than ' ...[text shortened]... mlet' wouldn't appear as consecutive characters somewhere in an infinite random sequence is 0.
In the last bit, aren't you assuming something slightly weaker than normality as part of your definition of 'random'? (An infinite sequence of characters is 'normal' if every finite sequence appears in it equally as often as others of the same length). However, whether or not the decimal expansion (I think this was the phrase Ivanhoe was looking for) of pi is normal is an open problem, so it's possible that there is some finite sequence of digits which does not appear in the decimal expansion of pi, and it's also possible that this sequence somehow corresponds to 'To be or not to be'.
More simply, if we have an infinite sequence of 1s and 0s which we are not certain is normal, we can't be sure until we see one that any 0s appear at all.