Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Infinite monkey theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Infinite monkey theorem

This article has a little bit of everything: Popular depiction, formal math, pop culture references, anecdotes and trivia. It exhausts the topic's possibilities without descending into inanities. Pretty humourous too. -- Deepak 23:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• That a great percentage of the 'infinite number' of monkeys chose to defecate on the keyboard rather than type anything is reason enough for this self-effacing article to find feature status. This myth is long overdue puncturing. Denni☯ 01:23, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: great story, off the wall, fantastic topic, obviously people have done a lot of good work in research and attempts to copyedit, but the prose doesn't flow that well. For instance:

Subsequent restatements by other people have replaced the National Library not only with the British Museum but also with the Library of Congress; a popular retelling says that the monkeys would eventually type Shakespeare's plays.

<newline>

There need not be infinitely many monkeys; a single monkey who executes infinitely many keystrokes suffices.

This seems disconnected. In fact, there are many sentences that seem that way!

There are also no references. The monkey simulator was reported by various newspapers and has online references at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3013959.stm and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/12/national/main553500.shtml. I'll be more than happy to support once these issues have been resolved, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done --Deepak 14:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• OpposeNeutral: there is still room for improvement pedantic, well beyond the Pedantic usage note junk. Ejrrjs 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• What stuff in the article is pedantic? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added to the pedantic stuff I've identified some suggestions to improve the article

# The Pedantic usage note, by its own confession. Rename it Proper usage of the term infinite or whatever. Instead of to the mathematician use in technical terms or technically since the mathematical fact is certainly known to anyone with a college degree on science or engineering, or aware of the dictionary definition of infinite. On the other hand, a few more words on *why* a single monkey suffices might be interesting

1. The disgression on dactylography. If the word does not belong to proper English usage, just drop it and do not perpetute the translator's mistake.

# The whole paragraph on Huxley's debate. If it is not true, just say it and move forward. Or is it just a space filler?

I think the new format helps

1. Gian-Carlo Rota's quote of Whitehead. It is not one of Whitehead famous remarks [1] [2], its meaning is obscure and adds nothing to the subject matter. Drop that sentence.

Ejrrjs 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have now changed the title of the usage-note section to usage note. I think the usage note contains useful information for anyone who wants to learn mathematical terminology. I find some charm in the quote of Rota, who quotes Whitehead, and I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. (That text on probability that Rota died without finishing was sold in a draft form by MIT's Copy Technology Center; it was required reading for students in the course on probability that Rota taught every year. Quite possibly it's still sold there in that form; I'll check. Birkhauser Boston has asked another professor to try to put it into a form to be finally published more generally than by the Copy Technology Center, so maybe it will be seen on Amazon.com some day.) Michael Hardy 21:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, what did Whitehead mean? Is that a well known quote in some philosophy or math circles? Ejrrjs 22:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Could someone check the reference to Borel's 1909 book? I've

seen the English translation of the second edition; could someone check the original 1909 French one? (Maybe I'll do this at some point soon if I can.) Michael Hardy 23:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support- but maybe there should be more discussion of the probability of such events occuring. BrokenSegue 01:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if only for this brilliant, brilliant sentence: "not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, they started by attacking the keyboard with a stone, and continued by urinating and defecating on it." [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That was taken almost verbatim from the Times newspaper. Pretty funny though! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, interesting and reasonably well written. On a side note, Michael, you don't mess around do you. Not only did you check the english translation, but you want to check the original French too? It does make sense, so maybe we could ask someone on the French wikipedia to look for it? - Taxman 03:02, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Cyopardi 13:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This is a serious theory? I thought it was something DNA invented! Zerbey 19:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The bellman 03:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 12:19, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Phil | Talk 13:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)