Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Just how many monkeys = Shakespeare?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A recent blogger has announced that a few million simulated monkeys really could reproduce Shakespeare. This is such a hoary chestnut, that of course, everyone had to go and read just exactly what the fellow actually did, if only to ridicule it. Here’s how he describes his project,

Instead of having real monkeys typing on keyboards, I have virtual,
computerized monkeys that output random gibberish. This is supposed to mimic a monkey randomly mashing the keys on a keyboard. The computer program I wrote compares that monkey’s gibberish to every work of Shakespeare to see if it actually matches a small portion of what Shakespeare wrote…

For this project, I used Hadoop, Amazon EC2, and Ubuntu Linux. Since I don’t have real monkeys, I have to create fake Amazonian Map Monkeys. The Map Monkeys create random data in ASCII between a and z.  It uses Sean Luke’s Mersenne Twister to make sure I have fast, random, well behaved monkeys.  Once the monkey’s output is mapped, it is passed to the reducer which runs the characters through a Bloom Field membership test.  If the monkey output passes the membership test, the Shakespearean works are checked using a string comparison.  If that passes, a genius monkey has written 9 characters of Shakespeare.  The source material is all of Shakespeare’s works as
taken from Project Gutenberg.

Read more …

Comments
A good way to figure out that this is fairly silly is to ask the question, "why 9 letters?" Or, an even better question, "what would happen if there were only one-letter strings?" or "what would happen if he matched 50-letter strings?" In the first case, the computer would be done in a few seconds, probably. In the second one, the computer would never get done. So, the choice of 9-letter fragments is a ruse - it makes it look like he's achieving something, when actually he's just weaseling. It gives the computer something to do to make it *look* like it is generating stuff randomly, but not enough to do that it would actually be a hard problem.johnnyb
September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Well, of course, but fitting those 9 letter fragments back into a jigsaw puzzle of Shakespeare takes a bona fide human. As one blogger put it, this is just Dawkin's Weasel program all over again--comparing a partially completed solution to the final solution, and modifying only the parts that are wrong.
LOL. Back to the "latching" claim. A durable myth. But I'm not defending the monkey program, because I haven't seen exactly how it works. It may latch.Petrushka
September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Read the rest of the blogRobert Sheldon
September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
In what way is it flawed?thud
September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Oh, brother. A fun bit of amateur programming, but nothing more. A slightly more sophisticated version of Dawkins' logically-flawed embarrassment "me thinks it is a weasel" program.Eric Anderson
September 27, 2011
September
09
Sep
27
27
2011
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply