The scenario is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters, assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28 characters will be random. The number of possible combinations in this random sequence is 2728, or about 1040, so the probability that the monkey will produce a given sequence is extremely low. Any particular sequence of 28 characters could be selected as a "target" phrase, all equally as improbable as Dawkins's chosen target, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" \/ continue
@BIGGERLebowski You don't understand, it's the idea of one key being pressed one after the other for infinity. You'd have every single possible outcome eventually. One of which would be the complete Shakespeare's work.
There's nothing to do with sequences of characters.
A computer program could be written to carry out the actions of Dawkins's hypothetical monkey, continuously generating combinations of 26 letters and spaces at high speed. Even at the rate of millions of combinations per second, it is unlikely, even given the entire lifetime of the universe to run, that the program would ever produce the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".[1]
No, they wouldn't, due to the way that the problem is stated. The main issue is that monkeys are used, rather than actual random permutations of characters.
A monkey takes a finite amount of time to press a key, which means that it would take an infinite amount of monkeys the amount of time it takes them to type the number of characters that are in the complete works of Shakespeare.
While not quite an infinite amount of time, it's not instantaneous either.
I'm not saying this is the definitive answer but think about it a little. The monkeys still have a very small chance to type the complete works of Shakespeare incorrectly an infinite amount of times, thus making it an unthinkably high probability but not an absolute certainty. So in my opinion, Ricky is wrong. However Karl is still an idiot with a head like a fucking orange
@dahorn11 it is an absolute certainty. the point ricky is making is that 'infinity' encompasses the concept of 'all'. So if you have a monkey making infinate random combinations of letters, he will make all possible combinations of letters. The complete work of shakespeare is a possible combination of letters. therefore the monkey must produce the complete works of shakespeare.
@robjs89 I guess my point i was trying to make was really that the nature of infinity can be interpreted in many many ways and its impossible to prove or disprove any theory. Anyway, Mr burns is working very hard to provide a definitive answer for us all. /watch?v=JcSUWP0QNeY
I agree with you, I'm just saying that there could be some models for monkey typing where there is literally 0 chance (e.g. if it bashes with its whole hand, rather than using a single finger). But yeah, it's implied that the monkeys are supposed to be typing in a sufficiently random manner, so that eventually they will type any and every finite length sequence you can think of.
@Pacmunchkin If they all type one letter on go, they will collectively have typed an infinite amount of random letters that could be rearranged into the complete works of Shakespeare
I think Karl had a problem with the point of it being a monkey and he thought that a monkey by its nature could not do that. it is true, that there is no such thing as an immortal monkey of course, so right off the bat it is confusing because you are requiring something that cannot exist, since living things are by definition, finite. However, I'd prefer to take another example and say randomly the book assembled itself within infinity or something and ask that question.
derren brown explained this by flipping a coin for an entire day - he eventually came to a string of 10 heads in a row which seems extremely unlikely but with enough time it becomes nearly inevitable
if you present a monkey with a type writer there's maybe a .0001 % chance it'll type something. of those monkeys, there's maybe a .0001% chance it'll type a second thing. and so on and so on, with infinite monkeys, you'll have infinitely many monkeys who happen to type things.
@soulfunkcity well no what i mean is if you put a laptop with word on in the middle of the rain forest no monkey would touch it let alone type something
@luckygozer yeh, no offence. you still don't understand the point. how do you know that no monkey would touch it, given enough time, or enough monkeys.
@dervish2173 It's not hitting them at random as a monkey wouldn't just sit there typing one key at a time- it would be bashing the keyboard, pressing loads of keys at once e.t.c. The original theory used monkeys as a hypothetical example of something random, which is incorrect because a monkey can't use a keyboard.
@theresbeenamixup But you must understand that, as long as the Monkey is interacting with the keyboard by pressing or bashing the buttons, for an infinite amount of time there is a chance that it would work.
@dervish2173 That argument doesn't quite work - what if you had a monkey with stumps instead of hands? It would still interact with the keyboard, but it would be physically impossible for it to press a key without simultaneously pressing a few other surrounding keys. So it would have 0 probability of ever typing Shakespeare.
Some other condition has to be satisfied (e.g. on every keystroke, every letter has a non-zero probability of being typed regardless of previous keystrokes)
@jmscarlett7 i think the same thing that confused karl has confused you. The monkey is just represents randomness, which is what the argument is about (random combinations + infinity = all combinations). The fact that a monkey has been chosen is irrelevant to what's been illustrated, it could have been a retard, a computer, whatever. Focusing on whether the monkey could physically do it is just nitpicking the analogy used and not what is actually being said..
@robjs89 Of course, the point of the monkey model is that they type randomly with no thought or reasoning. All I was saying is that if you want to be pedantic, you could find cases where the probability is zero, and it never happens. Your comparing me to Karl seems a bit ridiculous to me - his argument was basically "It'll never happen because they're not intelligent enough and they don't know the story"
While I do understand the infinite monkey theory, I think I know what Karl is on about - he's saying that monkeys are far too capable of thought to be counted as a random data input device. He's only standing up for the chimps.
After reading 3 pages worth of comments, I can't see how so many people find Pilkington so funny when they're clearly watching their intellectual equal.
Just to make the point again, It's about infinity. It's not about probability or the intellect of chimps. It is to say that given an endless amount of time, I say again ENDLESS, any and everything would occur
@helldamnguy I think that an ENDLESS amount of time to let monkeys write would amount to an endless eternity of monkey nonsense! Pilkington was right on this one.
@wyattbutler87 it's endless, every combination of every letter in every order possible will be done, they will write the complete works of shakespeare infinite times along with everything else infinite times
@wyattbutler87 You would definatly get a lot of monkey nonsense, no doubt about it. But an endless amount of time and/or monkeys, then one day one monkey will completely ,by chance, put together the works if Shakespeare. Though if you don't want to imagine they'd write out Shakespeare, then any book (writtable upon a typewriter) could be written. It's just like typing randomly without looking, there is a chance you'll make a word, so therefore you could write a book by mistake (chances are slim)
@wyattbutler87 The chances aren't impossible. They're extremely slim but eventually will output the works of shakespeare. And btw the whole idea of the monkeys are that they're hypothetical they wouldn't output "monkey rubbish" because they're not meant to be monkeys they're simply devices that type at random. monkeys were used because of their simple mindedness and the idea that they would just type randomly. Google infinite monkey theorem. Look at the wikipedia page. I can't post a link sorry.
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS
I get the theory but think it's stupid because who is to say it wouldn't just keep hitting the same letter over and over . I realize its a model and not literal but I think it's shit.
@sooner78 an infinite amount of the infininite amount of monkeys WOULD just hit S over and over again.
but the number of protons in the universe is as close to the number of monkeys as the number 0 is. so as long as only 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the monkeys are capable of hitting buttons randomly, the works of shakespeare are an inevitability. an infinite amount of monkeys would actually produce the works of shakespeare on their first attempt.
@volound "the number of protons in the universe is as close to the number of monkeys as the number 0" really? cause last time i recalled, protons are more numerous than atoms
@volound ohhhhhhhh, ahhhhhh i get it, i misread you =), but still you cant be certain of 0.0000000000000000000000001% of monkeys in relation to the number of protons would type the work of Shakespeare as with any finite number there is the same chance of them typing faggot over and over again, in place of shakesheare's work
@PromotingRape indeed. there will be as many works of "faggot", as you described, as there will be shakespeares works produced.
the only limiting factor on the number of any particular work produced is the length of the work in question. content doesnt matter. you will find pi to 100 digits as often as any other particular 100 digit string.
@sooner78 Lol if you're saying what you're saying, you obviously don't 'get the theory'. Every possible combination would happen an infinite amount of times, conversely it wouldn't happen an infinite amount of times.
@ABEJOHNDERDANSER Because it's infinity, at some point it would occur. It is to make the point that given infinite time, any and everything would occur
@tomhalling this isn't entirely true. The monkey-typewriter concept supposes that there is a random ordering to how the monkeys hit the keys. This however has found to be not true and in fact it is much more likely that we would end up with page after page of jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjfjjjjjffjjjjjjkjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjfjjjjj. Now technically if every letter was pressed at least once than X infinity it would write Shakespeare but a truer scenario is one where you assign letter values to dice rolls. 2=A, 3=B
@Theoissic You've kinda missed the point, it's a theory, it doesn't mean it would work in reality - monkeys don't live forever and they would probably get bored in 5 minutes
@Theoissic It doesn't matter, because it's infinity. It doesn't matter how much gobbledygook is produced, with either infinite time and /or infinite monkeys with type writers, you will get the complete works of Shakespeare.
@andyfromsheldon you say it doesn't matter but it does with regards to free will or more importantly non-random behavior. Without a doubt if you are talking about a event that happens randomly than * infinity it will 100% happen however lets take the example of a human. If a human were to press the J key and almost only that key for infinity this would not produce Shakespeare but people think monkeys act randomly but they don't, they are conscious beings and are not bound by randomness.
@andyfromsheldon now at the same time however it depends on your version of infinity this can make it possible for a monkey to do so. By this I mean infinity including all parallel/alternate dimensions or versions of reality. The experiment however is not concerning itself with this infinity it is only concerning itself with our reality/universe/laws of physics and within that an infinite amount of the monkeys on earth. Therefore no the experiment is such that there will be no Shakespeare. Sorry
@tomhalling Nope, they would type it in the shortest time a monkey could possibly type the entire works of shakespeare.. probably more than a few days, Besides monkeys neurology will produce patterns which would render them incapable of typing the works of shakespeare through free will (do i sound like an asshole yet?)
I like the idea that Karl finds it more believable that one monkey typing forever would eventually type the complete works of William Shakespeare than an infinite number of monkeys typing forever.
He thinks too...not practically...not literally... I dunno. His mentality limits his vision. If everyone was Karl Pilkington. clothes would probably only come in 5 colours, there'd be no art and anything that doesn't serve a purpose other than convenience would have been invented. I feel sorry for Karl here as I think Gervais does provoke him to get a reaction and Karl knows this but not in this video Gervais actually wants him to try understand.
Does it mean that all the words in the works of Shakespeare will be in the right order and spelt correctly etc. Or just the right words spelt correctly in any order?
@CrazyWolf99 Both, an infinite amount of times. Every variation possible of Shakespeare would be reproduced and infinite amount of times, the same with everything that has been written before, and everything that hasn't been written ever.
If there were a monkey represented by every atom of the universe which typed a sentence every second it would take longer than the heat death of the universe for it to be likely for them to type just the line "to be or not to be that is the question". Karl is still wrong but this helps bring to the fore how profound riky's argument is about infinity and probability.
@melk100 : Infinity a myth? Are you being sarcastic? If not.. You are denying that something can go on and on and on? What about numbers? Do you think numbers end? There's always +1. You can also have a line of letters, keep adding letters on and on and on .. it never stops.. it's infinite. Infinite just means it's never going to end. It's not something thats premade. It starts and it doesn't stop. How hard is that to grasp.
@DieMenschMaschine85 A myth no. An analytical idea and useful? Yes. However, infinity by definition can never exist, because, you can never get closer to infinity with each 'step' you take towards it. On a graph, the line would tend to infinity/vertical, but never reach it. So yes, I am definitely going to deny that some can go 'on and on' in the real world. Because like I said, it's impossible by it's own definition. And before you ask, yes I do understand infinity, and this idea expressing it.
@DieMenschMaschine85 I think he meant more in the physical world. As far as concrete items go, then yeah, infinity cannot exist. Even the universe can't go on forever. However, an abstract idea, such as numbers, could go on forever. Although, with that in mind, we're presented with the classic physics of light particles, which do go on forever, or at least until there's not an organic being present, in which quantum physics takes over and everything disappears due to there being no observer.
Yeah I agree with Karl. They wouldn't. It's like saying ... umm... a clock ticks, and given an infinite amount of time the clock would go backwards, or write shakeaspeare, or build a bridge. It is incapable of that. A million monkeys aren't the same thing as a computer putting letters down purely randomly. A monkey might break the typewriter to be honest. The anecdote should instead be about a computer program that randomly generates characters, not this monkey nonsense.
no, it's like saying if you had an infinite number of dice rolled an infinite number of times, there would be an infinite number of times when a million straight sixes were rolled. in an infinite amount of time all probabilities, no matter how small, are realized
It wouldn't work if it was an infinite amount of monkeys, since shakespeare's entire work isn't an infinite amount of words.. I know that they'd get it right, but the nature of infinity is better expressed with just one monkey pressing a random button two times per second.
I tried to use the chimp model to explain infinity to my mum and she pretty much had the exact same reaction as Karl. After half an hour I just gave up.
@Zypher147 It works like this: Karl thinks like an idiot and then ends on a joke to close it. It's the same formula but it never gets old because his mind is so entertaining and creative. It's a like a child's explanation that ends on a punch line.
@suredoloveya Correct, but who said anything about numbers?
The chimpanzee would be completely oblivious to what it is typing, and therefore it is random as there is no thought process going on effecting the words coming out.
@BanksyKid well the assumption is that each time the chimp presses a key, there is an equal chance that each key might be pressed. but that might not be the case, since the chimp might take a liking to a particular key, or he might prefer to bang on the keys in a certain pattern, etc. a chimp is just a kind of gesture towards the concept of 'unthinking randomness'. my point is that the symbol is a weak one, and that fallacy is what karl's latching onto. they do think, though not about words.
They actually conducted an experiment where they gave 8 chimps typewriters for several months, and at the end of the experiment they learned that the chimps were fond of the letter 's'.
What's the overtime rate. He could be one very rich monkey with infinite overtime.
If Max Clifford represented this monkey he'd have his own series, a mansion in Kent and be married to Jordan. Instead, I bet he is working for peanuts.
What's the overtime rate. He could be one very rich monkey with infinite overtime.
If Max Clifford represented this monkey he'd have his own series, a mansion in Kent and be married to Jordan. Instead, I bet he is working for peanuts.
@Projectfrontroom lol. yeah i know. just a quote....but if you think about it, monkeyz have been around forever, mate. no publications yet. just caz infinity suddenly kicks in i don't think they will all of a sudden run to typrewriters and start working. and if us humans, i'm presuming ur a human, try and force them to write i don't think they would. Its hard to get monkeyz to focus, man.
As I've heard it said before, " if you have an infinite amount of trials and you have a finite answer, your bound to get it." anywho Karl is still great!
im pretty sure that ricky writes all of karls material and karl just acts it out as "the retarded friend" Not that it really matters cause it's all hilarious in the end.
@Zypher147 Not to try and justify the way he's being treated or anything but Ricky Gervais is kind of an ass. He's funny, but he's an ass. And don't feel too bad for Karl because at least he's getting paid to be ridiculed
I think the issue with Karl is that he is not good at translating analogies\metaphors into their real meanings.
If you show him a yellow ball and a smaller blue ball and say:"let's assume this (blue) is the earth and it is surrounding the sun (yellow) like this (*motion*).
He'll go: how can it be the earth if it's that small? And this yellow one is not even hot...
@RagingShrimp67 he does have a way of seeing things differently. ive heard ppl say they think he has autism but im not so sure. ppl with autism arent even necessarily "stupid" they just think differently
but in saying that with an infinite amount of time he'd break the type writer infinite times and fix it again infinite times and then write shakespeare.
when im sad i just watch this video.
logfella 1 month ago
"There hasn't been ONE publication from a monkey." xD Hilarious!
Bearsca 2 months ago 6
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A COW
razerburst 2 months ago
"There hasn't been one publication by a monkey"
PaperTreeMusic 3 months ago
...if not shakespeare, maybe "twilight"...? : I
alifelesscritic 3 months ago in playlist Ricky Gervais, Karl Pilkington, Steve Merchant's pod casts
The scenario is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters, assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28 characters will be random. The number of possible combinations in this random sequence is 2728, or about 1040, so the probability that the monkey will produce a given sequence is extremely low. Any particular sequence of 28 characters could be selected as a "target" phrase, all equally as improbable as Dawkins's chosen target, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" \/ continue
BIGGERLebowski 4 months ago
@BIGGERLebowski You don't understand, it's the idea of one key being pressed one after the other for infinity. You'd have every single possible outcome eventually. One of which would be the complete Shakespeare's work.
There's nothing to do with sequences of characters.
MrFergalPie 1 month ago
A computer program could be written to carry out the actions of Dawkins's hypothetical monkey, continuously generating combinations of 26 letters and spaces at high speed. Even at the rate of millions of combinations per second, it is unlikely, even given the entire lifetime of the universe to run, that the program would ever produce the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".[1]
BIGGERLebowski 4 months ago
@BIGGERLebowski But it's not the same as infinity.
askesl 3 months ago
@BIGGERLebowski
Gervais was talking about infinity though.
ChainsawVsGod 1 month ago
Karl wouldn't write the complete work of Shakespeare with an infinite amount of time :D
ManUnitedMedia 4 months ago
The Brave Harry
kaiserdog79 4 months ago
Infina-ey.
RoverHD 4 months ago
Is it impossible or just highly improbable? When dealing with infinity this sort of thing tends to matter.
thakorian 4 months ago
@tomhalling
No, they wouldn't, due to the way that the problem is stated. The main issue is that monkeys are used, rather than actual random permutations of characters.
A monkey takes a finite amount of time to press a key, which means that it would take an infinite amount of monkeys the amount of time it takes them to type the number of characters that are in the complete works of Shakespeare.
While not quite an infinite amount of time, it's not instantaneous either.
CLukeG 5 months ago
i would if an infinite number of Karl Pilkingtons would be able to type shakespear :D
KyrisTV 5 months ago
I'm not saying this is the definitive answer but think about it a little. The monkeys still have a very small chance to type the complete works of Shakespeare incorrectly an infinite amount of times, thus making it an unthinkably high probability but not an absolute certainty. So in my opinion, Ricky is wrong. However Karl is still an idiot with a head like a fucking orange
dahorn11 6 months ago
@dahorn11 it is an absolute certainty. the point ricky is making is that 'infinity' encompasses the concept of 'all'. So if you have a monkey making infinate random combinations of letters, he will make all possible combinations of letters. The complete work of shakespeare is a possible combination of letters. therefore the monkey must produce the complete works of shakespeare.
robjs89 6 months ago
@robjs89 I guess my point i was trying to make was really that the nature of infinity can be interpreted in many many ways and its impossible to prove or disprove any theory. Anyway, Mr burns is working very hard to provide a definitive answer for us all. /watch?v=JcSUWP0QNeY
dahorn11 6 months ago
I agree with you, I'm just saying that there could be some models for monkey typing where there is literally 0 chance (e.g. if it bashes with its whole hand, rather than using a single finger). But yeah, it's implied that the monkeys are supposed to be typing in a sufficiently random manner, so that eventually they will type any and every finite length sequence you can think of.
jmscarlett7 6 months ago
@Pacmunchkin If they all type one letter on go, they will collectively have typed an infinite amount of random letters that could be rearranged into the complete works of Shakespeare
tomhalling 6 months ago
I think Karl had a problem with the point of it being a monkey and he thought that a monkey by its nature could not do that. it is true, that there is no such thing as an immortal monkey of course, so right off the bat it is confusing because you are requiring something that cannot exist, since living things are by definition, finite. However, I'd prefer to take another example and say randomly the book assembled itself within infinity or something and ask that question.
MrApplewine 6 months ago
there is a probability of 4.4 × 10 ^360,783 including punctuation of getting it right the first time
joshie9119 7 months ago
"There hasn't been one publication from a monkey" HAHAHAHA!!
Trudde1337 7 months ago
derren brown explained this by flipping a coin for an entire day - he eventually came to a string of 10 heads in a row which seems extremely unlikely but with enough time it becomes nearly inevitable
AndysEdits 7 months ago
if you present a monkey with a type writer there's maybe a .0001 % chance it'll type something. of those monkeys, there's maybe a .0001% chance it'll type a second thing. and so on and so on, with infinite monkeys, you'll have infinitely many monkeys who happen to type things.
MrG0dbar 7 months ago
The man who first thought of infinity must of had a really hard time explaining what it is :(
chewbaccamasks 7 months ago
see im actauly with karl on this one
why? becaus having a monkey do a complete shakespeare is not what a monkey does
thats like having an infinite amount of dogs and throwing them off a cliff waiting till one of them flys off doesnt happen
luckygozer 8 months ago
Comment removed
soulfunkcity 7 months ago
@luckygozer you dont understand, thats why your with karl.
soulfunkcity 7 months ago
@soulfunkcity well no what i mean is if you put a laptop with word on in the middle of the rain forest no monkey would touch it let alone type something
luckygozer 7 months ago
@luckygozer yeh, no offence. you still don't understand the point. how do you know that no monkey would touch it, given enough time, or enough monkeys.
soulfunkcity 7 months ago
@luckygozer Yeh but if the monkey is hitting keys at random for an infinite ammount of time it would work...
dervish2173 7 months ago
@dervish2173 It's not hitting them at random as a monkey wouldn't just sit there typing one key at a time- it would be bashing the keyboard, pressing loads of keys at once e.t.c. The original theory used monkeys as a hypothetical example of something random, which is incorrect because a monkey can't use a keyboard.
theresbeenamixup 6 months ago
@theresbeenamixup But you must understand that, as long as the Monkey is interacting with the keyboard by pressing or bashing the buttons, for an infinite amount of time there is a chance that it would work.
dervish2173 6 months ago
@dervish2173 That argument doesn't quite work - what if you had a monkey with stumps instead of hands? It would still interact with the keyboard, but it would be physically impossible for it to press a key without simultaneously pressing a few other surrounding keys. So it would have 0 probability of ever typing Shakespeare.
Some other condition has to be satisfied (e.g. on every keystroke, every letter has a non-zero probability of being typed regardless of previous keystrokes)
jmscarlett7 6 months ago
@jmscarlett7 Yeah but as long as there is a chance for all 2 character combinations on the keyboard, it would work, you must understand that...
dervish2173 6 months ago
@jmscarlett7 i think the same thing that confused karl has confused you. The monkey is just represents randomness, which is what the argument is about (random combinations + infinity = all combinations). The fact that a monkey has been chosen is irrelevant to what's been illustrated, it could have been a retard, a computer, whatever. Focusing on whether the monkey could physically do it is just nitpicking the analogy used and not what is actually being said..
robjs89 6 months ago
@robjs89 Of course, the point of the monkey model is that they type randomly with no thought or reasoning. All I was saying is that if you want to be pedantic, you could find cases where the probability is zero, and it never happens. Your comparing me to Karl seems a bit ridiculous to me - his argument was basically "It'll never happen because they're not intelligent enough and they don't know the story"
jmscarlett7 6 months ago
Oh Karl....what would we do without you?
KittiMitties 8 months ago
i think karl's doing the winding
zilbiol 8 months ago
While I do understand the infinite monkey theory, I think I know what Karl is on about - he's saying that monkeys are far too capable of thought to be counted as a random data input device. He's only standing up for the chimps.
ministryoftea 8 months ago
@ministryoftea Nah he's too daft to think that hard lol he just plain doesnt understand it.
knoble430 8 months ago
@ministryoftea Why be stuck at a typewriter when they could be out robbing banks and hosting russian tv shows
helldamnguy 8 months ago
After reading 3 pages worth of comments, I can't see how so many people find Pilkington so funny when they're clearly watching their intellectual equal.
Just to make the point again, It's about infinity. It's not about probability or the intellect of chimps. It is to say that given an endless amount of time, I say again ENDLESS, any and everything would occur
helldamnguy 8 months ago
@helldamnguy I think that an ENDLESS amount of time to let monkeys write would amount to an endless eternity of monkey nonsense! Pilkington was right on this one.
wyattbutler87 8 months ago
@wyattbutler87 it's endless, every combination of every letter in every order possible will be done, they will write the complete works of shakespeare infinite times along with everything else infinite times
ianwalker1980 8 months ago
@wyattbutler87 You would definatly get a lot of monkey nonsense, no doubt about it. But an endless amount of time and/or monkeys, then one day one monkey will completely ,by chance, put together the works if Shakespeare. Though if you don't want to imagine they'd write out Shakespeare, then any book (writtable upon a typewriter) could be written. It's just like typing randomly without looking, there is a chance you'll make a word, so therefore you could write a book by mistake (chances are slim)
Lemonlemmings 8 months ago
@Lemonlemmings The chances are impossible.
wyattbutler87 8 months ago
Comment removed
Lemonlemmings 8 months ago
@wyattbutler87 The chances aren't impossible. They're extremely slim but eventually will output the works of shakespeare. And btw the whole idea of the monkeys are that they're hypothetical they wouldn't output "monkey rubbish" because they're not meant to be monkeys they're simply devices that type at random. monkeys were used because of their simple mindedness and the idea that they would just type randomly. Google infinite monkey theorem. Look at the wikipedia page. I can't post a link sorry.
Lemonlemmings 8 months ago
@JohnPurchaseArt No hed just sit there goin "W...what's the point o' this?"
tomhalling 8 months ago
Oh, man! This is so funny!
Bearsca 8 months ago
Would an infinite amount of Karl Pilkington's with typewriters eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare?
JohnPurchaseArt 8 months ago
you guys sound like a bunch of karls, hahahahah
wilymcgee 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hide
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS
HatersGonnaHate1000 9 months ago
god is logic see my site theoreticalphysics.webs.com
paginipro 9 months ago
It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.
plebiscite 9 months ago
I get the theory but think it's stupid because who is to say it wouldn't just keep hitting the same letter over and over . I realize its a model and not literal but I think it's shit.
sooner78 9 months ago
@sooner78 an infinite amount of the infininite amount of monkeys WOULD just hit S over and over again.
but the number of protons in the universe is as close to the number of monkeys as the number 0 is. so as long as only 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the monkeys are capable of hitting buttons randomly, the works of shakespeare are an inevitability. an infinite amount of monkeys would actually produce the works of shakespeare on their first attempt.
volound 9 months ago
@volound im sorry but your talking bullshit kthxbye
PromotingRape 9 months ago
@PromotingRape to a philosophical simpleton such as yourself, id imagine there isnt much that isnt bullshit.
at least karl has an excuse, hes just executing a deadpan routine. youre a genuine moron.
volound 9 months ago
@volound "the number of protons in the universe is as close to the number of monkeys as the number 0" really? cause last time i recalled, protons are more numerous than atoms
PromotingRape 9 months ago
@PromotingRape the number 1 is as close to infinity as the number googolplexplexplexplexplex.
volound 9 months ago
@volound ohhhhhhhh, ahhhhhh i get it, i misread you =), but still you cant be certain of 0.0000000000000000000000001% of monkeys in relation to the number of protons would type the work of Shakespeare as with any finite number there is the same chance of them typing faggot over and over again, in place of shakesheare's work
PromotingRape 9 months ago
@PromotingRape indeed. there will be as many works of "faggot", as you described, as there will be shakespeares works produced.
the only limiting factor on the number of any particular work produced is the length of the work in question. content doesnt matter. you will find pi to 100 digits as often as any other particular 100 digit string.
volound 9 months ago
@sooner78 Lol if you're saying what you're saying, you obviously don't 'get the theory'. Every possible combination would happen an infinite amount of times, conversely it wouldn't happen an infinite amount of times.
TheModCon 9 months ago
He's such an idiot. but to be fair I dont really get the theory.
ABEJOHNDERDANSER 9 months ago
@ABEJOHNDERDANSER Because it's infinity, at some point it would occur. It is to make the point that given infinite time, any and everything would occur
helldamnguy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who believes the universe is infinite?
underdogg87 9 months ago
chimpanzees can write, look at entourage
nrl1987 9 months ago
@slroc Actually with an infinite amount of monkeys they would type the complete works of Shakespeare instantly, they wouldnt need forever
tomhalling 9 months ago 41
@tomhalling this isn't entirely true. The monkey-typewriter concept supposes that there is a random ordering to how the monkeys hit the keys. This however has found to be not true and in fact it is much more likely that we would end up with page after page of jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjfjjjjjffjjjjjjkjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjfjjjjj. Now technically if every letter was pressed at least once than X infinity it would write Shakespeare but a truer scenario is one where you assign letter values to dice rolls. 2=A, 3=B
Theoissic 7 months ago
@Theoissic You've kinda missed the point, it's a theory, it doesn't mean it would work in reality - monkeys don't live forever and they would probably get bored in 5 minutes
tomhalling 7 months ago
@Theoissic It doesn't matter, because it's infinity. It doesn't matter how much gobbledygook is produced, with either infinite time and /or infinite monkeys with type writers, you will get the complete works of Shakespeare.
andyfromsheldon 6 months ago
@andyfromsheldon you say it doesn't matter but it does with regards to free will or more importantly non-random behavior. Without a doubt if you are talking about a event that happens randomly than * infinity it will 100% happen however lets take the example of a human. If a human were to press the J key and almost only that key for infinity this would not produce Shakespeare but people think monkeys act randomly but they don't, they are conscious beings and are not bound by randomness.
Theoissic 6 months ago
@andyfromsheldon now at the same time however it depends on your version of infinity this can make it possible for a monkey to do so. By this I mean infinity including all parallel/alternate dimensions or versions of reality. The experiment however is not concerning itself with this infinity it is only concerning itself with our reality/universe/laws of physics and within that an infinite amount of the monkeys on earth. Therefore no the experiment is such that there will be no Shakespeare. Sorry
Theoissic 6 months ago
@tomhalling they would not do it instantly. It takes time to type it. You get infinite monkeys..3..2..1..GO. Then they would take time to type it.
Pacmunchkin 6 months ago
@tomhalling
How so?
sanauj15 5 months ago
@tomhalling Nope, they would type it in the shortest time a monkey could possibly type the entire works of shakespeare.. probably more than a few days, Besides monkeys neurology will produce patterns which would render them incapable of typing the works of shakespeare through free will (do i sound like an asshole yet?)
honeymonster147 4 months ago
They should put typewriters in zoos, and then we'll see.
AlexDCl 9 months ago
I like the idea that Karl finds it more believable that one monkey typing forever would eventually type the complete works of William Shakespeare than an infinite number of monkeys typing forever.
slroc 9 months ago
His face in the thumbnail is hilarious.
MINDxWORM 10 months ago
He thinks too...not practically...not literally... I dunno. His mentality limits his vision. If everyone was Karl Pilkington. clothes would probably only come in 5 colours, there'd be no art and anything that doesn't serve a purpose other than convenience would have been invented. I feel sorry for Karl here as I think Gervais does provoke him to get a reaction and Karl knows this but not in this video Gervais actually wants him to try understand.
DieMenschMaschine85 10 months ago
@DieMenschMaschine85 : *wouldN'T't have been invented.
DieMenschMaschine85 10 months ago
Head like a fucking orange.
StraitKnopfler 10 months ago
It's quite sweet that both Karl and several people leaving comments simply CANNOT get their head around this concept.
HumbertHumbert1991 10 months ago
People just can't grasp the idea :p if they were typing forever random letters, one day it will happen just because it has to :p
tiddleto2te 10 months ago
If you agree with Karl, you're a fuck-knuckle and you don't understand Infinity
Kempter1 10 months ago
Does it mean that all the words in the works of Shakespeare will be in the right order and spelt correctly etc. Or just the right words spelt correctly in any order?
CrazyWolf99 10 months ago
@CrazyWolf99 The theory suggests that the whole works of Shakespeare will be reproduced, spelt correctly, & in the exact order.
MikeValentine412 10 months ago
@CrazyWolf99 Both, an infinite amount of times. Every variation possible of Shakespeare would be reproduced and infinite amount of times, the same with everything that has been written before, and everything that hasn't been written ever.
TheModCon 10 months ago
It's just so hard to get monkies to focus
MikeValentine412 10 months ago 8
ofc it would happen.
CptCumFace 10 months ago
I agree with Karl on this, it wouldn't happen
chrisb11062 10 months ago
I agree with Karl. lol.
AlexDCl 10 months ago
@Zypher147 That is exactly what makes him a comic genius. He's so good at acting it out that you can't tell the difference.
inademv 10 months ago
If there were a monkey represented by every atom of the universe which typed a sentence every second it would take longer than the heat death of the universe for it to be likely for them to type just the line "to be or not to be that is the question". Karl is still wrong but this helps bring to the fore how profound riky's argument is about infinity and probability.
apollyon1 10 months ago
@apollyon1 u put it very well. it is incredible but the nature of infinitiy is such that it MUST happen.
keggerous 10 months ago
1:01
iknowme 10 months ago
Comment removed
iknowme 10 months ago
Comment removed
iknowme 10 months ago
Comment removed
iknowme 10 months ago
Karl Pilkington is an absolute fucking comedy genius
Bexx407 10 months ago
@Zypher147 It's called deadpan.
HabeKeinMitleid 10 months ago
There is 1 dislike. That is WAY too many for this video.
DevoutPatriot 10 months ago 22
This man knows EXACTLY what he is doing.
He can keep a straight face,but his eyes give the game away.
.....And he can think on his feet and turn on a sixpence.
rumteetoo 10 months ago
@Zypher147 i prefer to think of him being so clever that he makes us think he is extremly dumb :D
skate619 10 months ago
Is it silly to point out that acording to Darwin , it has happen once!
But other than that i Agree with Carl on this, infinity is just a myth
melk100 10 months ago
@melk100 : Infinity a myth? Are you being sarcastic? If not.. You are denying that something can go on and on and on? What about numbers? Do you think numbers end? There's always +1. You can also have a line of letters, keep adding letters on and on and on .. it never stops.. it's infinite. Infinite just means it's never going to end. It's not something thats premade. It starts and it doesn't stop. How hard is that to grasp.
DieMenschMaschine85 10 months ago
@DieMenschMaschine85 A myth no. An analytical idea and useful? Yes. However, infinity by definition can never exist, because, you can never get closer to infinity with each 'step' you take towards it. On a graph, the line would tend to infinity/vertical, but never reach it. So yes, I am definitely going to deny that some can go 'on and on' in the real world. Because like I said, it's impossible by it's own definition. And before you ask, yes I do understand infinity, and this idea expressing it.
TheModCon 10 months ago
@DieMenschMaschine85 and if your name refers to Kraftwerk, they are amazing :D
TheModCon 10 months ago
@DieMenschMaschine85 I think he meant more in the physical world. As far as concrete items go, then yeah, infinity cannot exist. Even the universe can't go on forever. However, an abstract idea, such as numbers, could go on forever. Although, with that in mind, we're presented with the classic physics of light particles, which do go on forever, or at least until there's not an organic being present, in which quantum physics takes over and everything disappears due to there being no observer.
Fragacide 10 months ago
@DieMenschMaschine85 : Oh, OK, thanks for the input.
DieMenschMaschine85 10 months ago
Yeah I agree with Karl. They wouldn't. It's like saying ... umm... a clock ticks, and given an infinite amount of time the clock would go backwards, or write shakeaspeare, or build a bridge. It is incapable of that. A million monkeys aren't the same thing as a computer putting letters down purely randomly. A monkey might break the typewriter to be honest. The anecdote should instead be about a computer program that randomly generates characters, not this monkey nonsense.
braksator 10 months ago
@braksator Listen to Ricky.
shaneporter66 10 months ago
@braksator
no, it's like saying if you had an infinite number of dice rolled an infinite number of times, there would be an infinite number of times when a million straight sixes were rolled. in an infinite amount of time all probabilities, no matter how small, are realized
projectbeard 10 months ago
@projectbeard no it isn't
braksator 7 months ago
@braksator
probably the worst argument i've seen ever
projectbeard 7 months ago
I love how serious Karl is.
batrama310 10 months ago
It's scary that I can actually follow Karl's logic here, and think that Ricky is wrong ... bwahaha
MsFannyAdams 10 months ago
It wouldn't work if it was an infinite amount of monkeys, since shakespeare's entire work isn't an infinite amount of words.. I know that they'd get it right, but the nature of infinity is better expressed with just one monkey pressing a random button two times per second.
K4inan 10 months ago
@Zypher147 or both
blinkrhcp 10 months ago
Karl is the most rational person I know.
ReginaldMaulding 11 months ago
What he fails to realise is that chimps would have done the full works of Hemingway first!
jamesaellis 11 months ago
THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE PUBLICATION FROM A MONKEY. YOU TELL HIM KARL!!!! :)
NadiaVision 11 months ago
I tried to use the chimp model to explain infinity to my mum and she pretty much had the exact same reaction as Karl. After half an hour I just gave up.
sinfulmoose 11 months ago
@sinfulmoose so? are you saying your mum is stupid? don't say that about your own mum.
360cbh 11 months ago
@360cbh Calm down; I love my mum and I love Karl :}
sinfulmoose 11 months ago
Im with Karl on this one :)
Stryket66 11 months ago
KArl wants monkeys to do everything , he bring them up in everything they talk about lol
PoKerFaceN1 11 months ago
@Zypher147 It works like this: Karl thinks like an idiot and then ends on a joke to close it. It's the same formula but it never gets old because his mind is so entertaining and creative. It's a like a child's explanation that ends on a punch line.
LuneyTune72 11 months ago
They've been around for years but there hasn't been one publication from a monkey ahhahhahah
lolMegxxx 11 months ago
CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEMATRIXoCOM
mrg00ddude 11 months ago
a chimpanzee is not a random number generator.
suredoloveya 11 months ago
@suredoloveya Correct, but who said anything about numbers?
The chimpanzee would be completely oblivious to what it is typing, and therefore it is random as there is no thought process going on effecting the words coming out.
BanksyKid 11 months ago
@BanksyKid well the assumption is that each time the chimp presses a key, there is an equal chance that each key might be pressed. but that might not be the case, since the chimp might take a liking to a particular key, or he might prefer to bang on the keys in a certain pattern, etc. a chimp is just a kind of gesture towards the concept of 'unthinking randomness'. my point is that the symbol is a weak one, and that fallacy is what karl's latching onto. they do think, though not about words.
suredoloveya 11 months ago
@Zypher147 it sucks he realizes his following because now you Know that he will let that influence his responses
DEATHDEVOURED 11 months ago
Karl Pilkington: absolute and incontrovertible proof of Poe's law
idiotsrus92 11 months ago
Karl is just a character, that whole exchange was scripted.
jogeryjogo 11 months ago
@jogeryjogo If he is a character, its the greatest acting in human history. Its not scripted. Watch An Idiot Abroad.
Staff777 11 months ago
@jogeryjogo i would totally believe that but i dont think gervais could fake the lauphing
DEATHDEVOURED 11 months ago
Its brilliant when he says "well if its just one monkey he'll know what hes done" hahahaha
midnight69ers 11 months ago
@Zypher147 pretty sure he's just that dumb lol
kychen415 11 months ago
They actually conducted an experiment where they gave 8 chimps typewriters for several months, and at the end of the experiment they learned that the chimps were fond of the letter 's'.
TheScientist0000000 11 months ago 23
@TheScientist0000000 At least they have the right first letter :-)
TheGreatSteve 9 months ago
Ricky's face when he says 'You can believe it when one monkey does it!'
MisterAlexUk 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's the overtime rate. He could be one very rich monkey with infinite overtime.
If Max Clifford represented this monkey he'd have his own series, a mansion in Kent and be married to Jordan. Instead, I bet he is working for peanuts.
MrTerryKay 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's the overtime rate. He could be one very rich monkey with infinite overtime.
If Max Clifford represented this monkey he'd have his own series, a mansion in Kent and be married to Jordan. Instead, I bet he is working for peanuts.
MrTerryKay 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrTerryKay 1 year ago
Rickys face at 1:50 LOL
Js5s141 1 year ago
There hasn't been one publication from a monkey
MikeValentine412 1 year ago 38
@MikeValentine412 And it's true too.
Lop7dh 10 months ago
@MikeValentine412 not the point
Projectfrontroom 9 months ago
@Projectfrontroom lol. yeah i know. just a quote....but if you think about it, monkeyz have been around forever, mate. no publications yet. just caz infinity suddenly kicks in i don't think they will all of a sudden run to typrewriters and start working. and if us humans, i'm presuming ur a human, try and force them to write i don't think they would. Its hard to get monkeyz to focus, man.
MikeValentine412 9 months ago
@MikeValentine412 I hope foe your own sake this comment was a joke...
HarrisJamesBen 8 months ago
Comment removed
mrdisser 8 months ago
*You're*
184ktmdm 1 year ago
1 guy will no sense of humor
Izaak247 1 year ago
As I've heard it said before, " if you have an infinite amount of trials and you have a finite answer, your bound to get it." anywho Karl is still great!
184ktmdm 1 year ago
That was pointless, HAHA :D
Squzzt 1 year ago
im pretty sure that ricky writes all of karls material and karl just acts it out as "the retarded friend" Not that it really matters cause it's all hilarious in the end.
theelectricmoney 1 year ago
@theelectricmoney Ricky is not even that funny compared to karl.
all of karls jokes are improvised. hes the one that makes the show and the podcasts Hilarious
noodiTHEboss 1 year ago 4
@theelectricmoney youve got to be kidding. no human being in the world could write what karl's brain comes up with - or rather, his mouth
MyHorsePrince 1 year ago
@MyHorsePrince If there was infinite people, there would be infinite amounts of what he comes up with.
god0fgod 11 months ago
this is the way i feel when trying to explain evolution to people who deny it.
arna11420 1 year ago 2
@Zypher147 Not to try and justify the way he's being treated or anything but Ricky Gervais is kind of an ass. He's funny, but he's an ass. And don't feel too bad for Karl because at least he's getting paid to be ridiculed
BloodyReam 1 year ago
I think the issue with Karl is that he is not good at translating analogies\metaphors into their real meanings.
If you show him a yellow ball and a smaller blue ball and say:"let's assume this (blue) is the earth and it is surrounding the sun (yellow) like this (*motion*).
He'll go: how can it be the earth if it's that small? And this yellow one is not even hot...
RagingShrimp67 1 year ago
@RagingShrimp67 he does have a way of seeing things differently. ive heard ppl say they think he has autism but im not so sure. ppl with autism arent even necessarily "stupid" they just think differently
keggerous 10 months ago
but in saying that with an infinite amount of time he'd break the type writer infinite times and fix it again infinite times and then write shakespeare.
reecenelson 1 year ago