The MATH at the site http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys is correct. That many 9's after 0. is a longer chance then the universe has had life. The WMAP may be off, and, I can provide a link that will confirm what I have just said but nevertheless the WMAP tells us that time and everything we see started 13.7 billion years ago. Bottom line.

The math at http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys correctly shows that if there were 17 billion galaxies, each with 17 billion planets, each with 17 billion monkeys, each monkey has a 32 key typewriter, and each monkey types at a rate of 1 line per second, the chance of the phrase "TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION." being generated once in 17 billion years is about 1 in 19 trillion.

32⁴¹ = 2²⁰⁵
per the site 17 billion is approx 2³⁴
60 * 60 * 24 * 365 = 31536000, which is approx 2²⁵
2³⁴ * 2³⁴ * 2³⁴ * 2³⁴ * 2²⁵
(galaxies * planets * monkeys * years * seconds in a year) = 2¹⁶¹
2²⁰⁵ / 2¹⁶¹ = 2⁴⁴ = about 16 trillion

Thus the 1 in 19 trillion is likely in the right ballpark. Notice how none of these numbers are very large? Even 2²⁰⁵ is only about 5 x 10⁶¹, and there's an estimated 10⁸⁰ atoms in the observable universe. A googol seems like it might be a big number (10¹⁰⁰), though it's tiny compared to a googolplex (10^googol), and a googolplex is not even close to infinity.

With your command of math, this is all known to you, so what do you think the infinite monkey thought experiment demonstrates? Is it that, in common with the monkey site's author:

In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life. How can I suppose that Shakespeare himself was the result of a random process when it is quite clearly impossible for even a trivial fragment of his work to have arisen by chance? No sir, I see information all around me, and I conclude that it is the product of a far, far greater intelligence.

?

Here's another bit of math. There's about 12x10²⁰ liters of water on the planet, a large raindrop is about .1 ml, so there's about 12x10²⁴ raindrops. That means the chance against any one drop of water hitting you is 1 in 12x10²⁴. Stand out in a rainstorm and see how many raindrops hit you, each with this incredibly small chance of doing so. The chances of being hit by 10 (let alone 41) specific raindrops are so remote, the monkey math pales in comparison, though after the fact the chances are 1. Just like the works of Shakespeare.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...



1 in 19 trillion.

WMAP, 13.7 billion

0. with 49 9's after it.

0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

The number 0 and the above number awake in the morn and get into the same pair of pants because they walk so closely together. Bottom line.

No chance at all of a chance happening here. Without a Designer we would not be, bottom line.

I am done with this thread.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...



1 in 19 trillion.

WMAP, 13.7 billion

0. with 49 9's after it.

0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

The number 0 and the above number awake in the morn and get into the same pair of pants because they walk so closely together. Bottom line.

No chance at all of a chance happening here. Without a Designer we would not be, bottom line.

I am done with this thread.

ID, that is very enlightening and your reasoning can not be argued with.

---

yes the logic is sound when you take away reason and accountability

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Skill I did not say the logic was sound, I said it could not be argued with.

---

Here's another bit of math. There's about 12x10²⁰ liters of water on the planet, a large raindrop is about .1 ml, so there's about 12x10²⁴ raindrops. That means the chance against any one drop of water hitting you is 1 in 12x10²⁴. Stand out in a rainstorm and see how many raindrops hit you, each with this incredibly small chance of doing so.

Good math. Bad presentation of it. To correct you That means the chance against any specific drop of water hitting you is 1 in 12x10²⁴. So unless you specifically isolate that particular drop of water and follow it throughout its existence for proof of physical contact the water that hits you in a rainstorm isn't this droplet.

---

me@rescam.org

Here's another bit of math. There's about 12x10²⁰ liters of water on the planet, a large raindrop is about .1 ml, so there's about 12x10²⁴ raindrops. That means the chance against any one drop of water hitting you is 1 in 12x10²⁴. Stand out in a rainstorm and see how many raindrops hit you, each with this incredibly small chance of doing so.

Good math. Bad presentation of it. To correct you That means the chance against any specific drop of water hitting you is 1 in 12x10²⁴. So unless you specifically isolate that particular drop of water and follow it throughout its existence for proof of physical contact the water that hits you in a rainstorm isn't this droplet.

It's comparable to the chance of the specific phrase from Shakespeare being typed by the monkeys.

[ETA]The presentation was intentionally poor, just as the presentation of the monkey math is poor. The conclusions of both say nothing that leads to the conclusion the author of the monkey math site reaches. ID's reply appears to confirm that this fact has not registered.[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Math doesn't use philosophy

Sigh. (Along with Gary's apparently opposite earlier comment, that someone with a Bachelor's in Philosophy will understand mathematics.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

ID, it is clear that you do not understand Borel's law of large numbers as applied to random chance and infinity. Borel stated that as long as a probability exists and given an infinite number of attempts the event will occur! At least that is what the link you cited states.

you could also do the mooWrapper project which is looking to crack secure coding. The project at current rates of work would take about 250 years to process all possible combinations. This isn't infinite.

Whats a fact Jack is that them two numbers [zero and the one given at the site I posted] walk so close together that when they get up in the morn they get into the same pair of pants.

Show some understanding of the math...

so 0.000000000000000000000001 is virtually identical to 0.999999999999999999999999? I'm betting math will tell me this are significantly different numbers. So if I were looking at a precision piece of equipment and it said the tolerances were +/- 0.000000000000001 thats not even close to 1 but it is a lot more than 0. You seem to forget your authors point about the magnitude of numbers.

No, 0.999999999999999999999999, if the 9's are allowed to repeat infinitely, equals 1 (not 0.000000000000000000000001), and this is easily proved with no tricks or flaws.

Clearly, 0.000000000000000000000001 is 100000000000000000000000 times smaller than 1 = 0.9 repeating.

No, 0.999999999999999999999999, if the 9's are allowed to repeat infinitely, equals 1 (not 0.000000000000000000000001), and this is easily proved with no tricks or flaws

.

You may be assuming something that is not strictly true.

Repeating 9's are different in every single decimal position . In my study of the hyperreals that does not make them equal, They would have to match in a substantially BIG Set of decimal positions.

No, 0.999999999999999999999999, if the 9's are allowed to repeat infinitely, equals 1 (not 0.000000000000000000000001), and this is easily proved with no tricks or flaws

.

You may be assuming something that is not strictly true.

Repeating 9's are different in every single decimal position . In my study of the hyperreals that does not make them equal, They would have to match in a substantially BIG Set of decimal positions.

No matter how you look at it Vegas would love that house bet. So close to zero that each and everyone on the face of the earth would lose to them.

WM, your mentioning of hyperreals took me back to my undergraduate years. My God it was enjoyable to think about the stuff I thought about 45 years ago. I shall not clutter my mind like that soon.

---

Here's another bit of math. There's about 12x10²⁰ liters of water on the planet, a large raindrop is about .1 ml, so there's about 12x10²⁴ raindrops. That means the chance against any one drop of water hitting you is 1 in 12x10²⁴. Stand out in a rainstorm and see how many raindrops hit you, each with this incredibly small chance of doing so.

Good math. Bad presentation of it. To correct you That means the chance against any specific drop of water hitting you is 1 in 12x10²⁴. So unless you specifically isolate that particular drop of water and follow it throughout its existence for proof of physical contact the water that hits you in a rainstorm isn't this droplet.

Actually excellent presentation but of a different one of ID's favorite things. ID likes to say what the chances are of life, but use the odds of a specific form of life, and not life in general. So ID's argument is for a specific drop of water, but life in general is stepping out into the rain storm. I'm also sure the odds ID likes to quote were set well before the Kepler telescope gave us a real estimate of the number of planets where chemistry can occur ...

---

No, 0.999999999999999999999999, if the 9's are allowed to repeat infinitely, equals 1 (not 0.000000000000000000000001), and this is easily proved with no tricks or flaws

.

You may be assuming something that is not strictly true.

Repeating 9's are different in every single decimal position . In my study of the hyperreals that does not make them equal, They would have to match in a substantially BIG Set of decimal positions.

Let x = 0.9 (repeating).
Then 10x = 9.9 (repeating).
10x - x = 9x
and,
since in each place except the ones, the digits agree,
9.9 (repeating) - 0.9 (repeating) = 9.
So, 9x = 9. Hence, x = 1.

This used to be shown in first semester calculus. It is also included in texts for preservice elemntary teachers, such as by Long et al. and Billstein et al.

I am not saying anything about the hyperreals.
What little I do know, IIRC, is that one mathematician or a small group of them are trying to restore the concept of the infinitesmal to the development of calculus, and has had some success in setting up an axiomatic system and developing from there. Also, that the hyperreals contain the reals and that, locally (in the topological sense), the properties of the reals remain the same.

wait a tic you substituted 0.9 for .999999999etc thats not a logical substitution

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

wait a tic you substituted 0.9 for .999999999etc thats not a logical substitution

No, I didn't.
And the earlier part of the convo suggested infinite repetition was involved.

You rounded off and you are only accurate to that level. You have no right to assume that the "last" digit at infinity would be any number other than 9. In fact there is no last infinite number.

Yes.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

1 in 19 trillion.

WMAP, 13.7 billion

0. with 49 9's after it.

0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

The number 0 and the above number awake in the morn and get into the same pair of pants because they walk so closely together. Bottom line.

No chance at all of a chance happening here. Without a Designer we would not be, bottom line.

I am done with this thread.

I didn't respond to this post as you said you were done with the thread. Seeing as you have demonstrated that this is not true, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the question I asked ("what do you think the infinite monkey thought experiment demonstrates?") a little more directly.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

What is the difference between "intelligent" and "dumb"?

Meaning the possibility of an "intelligent" universe vs. a dumb universe.

Can we deduce the existence of God vs. no God by means of comparing or differentiating between order vs. chaos/randomness?

What do we mean or assume by means of order? It may seem that we are more concerned or occupied about chaos and randomness.

What, or which of these two forces suits or fits nature's purpose or meaning the best? Does infinity ( ~ ) mean order or chaos?

What is a "negative" number?

As you may well know, God is not supposed to be playing with dices.

Is it easier to explain everything related to physics (and maybe even more things) by means of mathematics?

Take 1/7, or 1/2.54 (an inch, by coincidence), pi (or 3.1415926), or 1/8 (0.125).

Mathematics (or calculus) makes everything explainable, even when it comes to probability as well as approximation.

Constants are a fundamental part of mathematics. Do constants make a representation for order or chaos?

Not everything which is or are dealing with scientific subjects are dealing with mathematics, however.

The exception is physics. Both physicists as well as mathematicians replace given numbers with formulae most of the time, like using the greek letter sigma (or the letter k turned 90 degrees).

Not available to me now, I will try locating it tomorrow.

Anyway, found this link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma

But this may be relating to both a function as well as a (statistical) sum of numbers (including probability).