Talk:Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
  • 3. No consensus, 17 August 2007, see discussion.
  • 2. Overturned, and relisted, 6 August 2007, see discussion.
  • 1. Delete, 26 July 2007, see discussion.

Contents

[edit] Merge? Conclusion: no

It seems to me that this article should really be part of the Infinite monkey theorem article: all other articles I know of list their popular culture references on the same page. Aprogressivist 13:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Put me down for a "yes" vote. — Loadmaster 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say no. The pop culture thing has a tendency to get out of hand, and was out of hand at infinite monkey theorem before User:Fagles split this article off on 29 December 2006. (The thing Fagles probably ought to have done better was make the split clear in the edit history, for GFDL purposes, but it's not too late; I'll take care of it now). --Trovatore 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I say "no." It's not true that all other articles list their popular culture references on the same page -- look at Category:In_popular_culture, which has 12 subcategories plus 76 pages. Also, I find the Infinite monkey theorem article to be much better (more readable and more "encyclopedic," whatever that means) now that it does not have four screens devoted to pop culture references. -Fagles 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As the instigator of the merge suggestion, I'm fairly satisfied by the two answers above; I'm taking off the merge tag unless someone else wants to present arguments for keeping it. --Aprogressivist 16:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod vs cleanup

I disagree with article deletion. At the same time I think that it requires a major cleanup. Only entries of significant cultural interest or these which constitute an important element of plot must be retained. Casual mentionings of "monkeys and typewriters" must be deleted, according to the general idea of notability in wikipedia. I am starting this kind of trimming. Mukadderat 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the previous remark out of general principle. Looking into the article more carefully while attempting to do a cleanup, I was surprized to notice that in fact the list is pretty well maintained: vast majority of entries are of certain notablility. Although it contained some insignificznt trivia. 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

If this article is to survive the AfD then we are going to need to find and add some sources. I am going to start looking now, but the original contributers might be able do so more swiftly.--Cronholm144 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like others have taken this up. I found three things on JSTOR. [1] [2] [3] not exactly popular culture, but maybe they can help (I have copies if needed). Cheers—Cronholm144 16:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those. The last one looks the most promising, being a direct claim in the title of the article that the "typing monkey" has become "proverbial". Carcharoth 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you want the full text? (I have wikipedia e-mail enabled or you can use my userboxes and email me conventionally) —Cronholm144 16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't got round to setting up an e-mail address to use on Wikipedia yet. When I do, I'll get in touch, but for now it would be best for people to add stuff to the article themselves. Even just a quote of the paper, title, year, details, etc. Plus a relevant short quote from the paper, here on the talk page, would be enough to be going on with. Carcharoth 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article

The following were removed from the article. To be re-added, please find a way to verify the entries and also find an independent source that comments on it as an example of mathematics in popular culture (or more specifically, of the infinite monkey theorem in popular culture). Done indicates a source was found and the entry was moved back to the article. Not done indicate the entry could not be verified or was deemed too peripheral for the article.

  • Y Done Comedian Bob Newhart has a stand-up routine in which a lab technician monitoring an "infinitely many monkeys" experiment discovered that one of the monkeys has typed "To be, or not to be; that is the gezortenblatt."
  • See [4] Ken Ringle, "Hello? This is Bob", Washington Post, October 28, 2002; page C01. The article gives the quote as "Hey, Harry! This one looks a little famous:'To be or not to be -- that is thegrrdnm zsplkt.'" Paul August ☎ 16:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • See also this Google search. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Added below and put back in the article. Carcharoth 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • N Not done rejected as unverified and undated (please add references if they exist) - Ross Noble incorporates the theory into his act, saying that he actually has 100,000 monkeys, but unfortunately only one typewriter.
  • N Not done rejected as unverified and undated (please add references if they exist) - Irish comedian Neil Delamere theorises that, if the infinite monkey theorem is true, it must also hold true that "1,000,000 boa constrictors, with 1,000,000 accordions, would eventually bash out the entire works of Westlife."
  • N Not done rejected as unverified and undated (please add references if they exist) - "It is said that if you place a million monkeys in front, of a million keyboards, they will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. This is simply not true. They cannot even produce an encyclopedia." from Daniel Brandt.
  • N Not done rejected as unverified and undated (please add references if they exist) - In a similar vein, Mad Magazine stated, "If an infinite number of monkeys typed 24-hours a day on an infinite number of computers, the result would be not unlike an AOL Chatroom."
  • N Not done rejected as unverified and undated (please add references if they exist) - In one strip of FoxTrot, Peter mentions the monkey theorem to Paige and tells her Jason wrote a program that generates random letters of the alphabet, adding "if it works for 'Hamlet' why not a 'Hamlet' book report?"
  • N Not done rejected as unverified and undated (please add references if they exist) - In an episode of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Sheen makes a science project that is very similar: He puts a bug in a glass dome, and places it in front of a hungry lizard on a keyboard. The idea is that the lizard will hit the keys with its feet while trying to get the bug, and will eventually write a great American novel.
  • N Not done rejected as peripheral (no reference to Shakespeare or similar) - On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart promised that none of their material would be plagiarized (after a few stories on the subject) because their show would be written by monkeys. A monkey was then shown typing material for the show; Jon was handed the monkey's latest output, only to reject it.
  • N Not done rejected as peripheral (no reference to many monkeys or Shakespeare or similar) - In an episode of the television show Titus, the comedian Christopher Titus states that "If you let Dave hit at a typewriter eventually he would type the word monkey. In fact, he would only type the word monkey. 'Cause that's his favorite word."
  • N Not done rejected as trivial (no Wikipedia article on Desencyclopedie) - 2006 - The French equivalent of Uncyclopedia, "Desencyclopedie", claims to be completely written by an infinite number of monkeys typing on keyboards.<ref>''"C'est un fait bien connu que si des singes tapent au hasard sur un clavier assez longtemps ils vont, finalement, récréer tous les livres de la Bibliothèque nationale de la France. Et c'est pour ça que nous avons créé la Désencyclopédie. C'est une source d'information en ligne que n'importe quel singe peut modifier, corriger, ou augmenter. Et c'est ainsi la plus fiable!"'' (''Translation:'' It is a well-known fact that if monkeys type randomly on a keyboard long enough they will finally recreate all the books in the national Library of France. And it is for that that we created Désencyclopédie. It is a source of information online that any monkey can modify, correct, or increase. And it is thus most reliable!) - [http://desencyclopedie.wikia.com/wiki/Aide:HowTo Desencyclopedie's 'help' page].</ref> This parody was first added in February 2006.
  • N Not done rejected as trivial (no Wikipedia article on "Mojo the Monkey") 2006 <!-- date based on the copyright date on the website - not ideal - need to find out when the website was first published -->- Online there is a game mocking the theorem called "Mojo the Monkey", in which a monkey types random keys that show up on the screen. When the monkey types an actual word, you highlight it and save it to the website's server and highscore list.<ref>[http://www.mojothemonkey.net Mojo the Monkey]</ref>
  • N Not done rejected as trivial and peripheral (no Wikipedia article on "The Windbreakers", and no indication of direct connection with the IMT) 1983 - The Windbreakers, a power-pop band from Mississippi, released an EP called Any Monkey With a Typewriter (1983).
  • N Not done moved to the history section (the monkey imagery, which this article focuses on, came later) 1782 - Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1782) anticipates the central idea of the theorem, depicting a professor of the Grand Academy of Lagado who attempts to create a complete list of all knowledge of science by having his students constantly create random strings of letters by turning cranks on a mechanism (Part three, Chapter five): although his intention was more likely to parody Ramon Llull.
  • N Not done rejected as borderline trivial (this is verifiable, and a genuine example of the use of the theorem in a comedy setting, but the comedy show itself received little attention and does not appear notable, and, unlike the obscure books and short stories, the mention is brief and passing) 2001 - In a sketch in the comedy show Attention Scum (BBC2 2001) Simon Munnery tackles the million monkey theory. His best line is, "The million monkeys were given a million typewriters...why that would be the Internet, surely?" - collection of quotes from the show, including the main one: "If a million monkeys were given a million typewriters, eventually one of them might produce the complete works of Shakespeare but to reach it would it be worth wading through four hundred copies of "Money" by Martin Amis?"
  • N Not done just one of many internet analogies 2002 - WWDN, the blog of author and actor Wil Wheaton, uses the slogan, "50,000 monkeys at 50,000 typewriters can't be wrong." His witticism won him a Bloggie in 2002 for the category "Best Tagline of a Weblog." Ironically, Mr. Wheaton's blog was itself shut down for nine months when someone entering a comment typed a random series of letters which just so happened to be a signal used by his blogging software, causing massive server problems.
  • N Not done another non-notable internet analogy 2004 - Google parodied as an interface to millions of monkeys with millions of typewriters, still unable to find any Shakespeare<ref>{{cite web | title=Shakespeare | author=Hiren Joshi | url=http://penguins.mooh.org/2004/06/shakespeare.xml | date= 6 June 2004 | accessdate=2007-08-13}}</ref>.

Initial batch added by Carcharoth 10:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (updated at intervals thereafter)

[edit] Some potential sources

Some potential sources for the article are being listed here:

  • [5] - popular mathematics book that mentions the theorem.
  • [6] - not a source, but follow the "link to the artist's website" - this "music.download.com" website is linking to Wikipedia articles, and the "link to the artist's website" takes you straight to Infinite monkey theorem!
  • [7] - includes press cuttings of the coverage of the experiment.
  • [8] - Wired article that indicates that this is a well-known thought experiment.
  • [9] Mathematics and Literature paper (JSTOR link) from 1982
  • [10] (PDF) - "Monkeys, Typewriters and Networks - the Internet in the Light of the Theory of Accidental Excellence" (also published in German in 2001)
  • Y Done [11] - independent source verifying the Morrison comic book entry
  • Y Done [12] - Amazon page verifying the Morrison comic book cover
  • N Not done [13] - collection of quotations including reference to the Infinite monkey theorem in a Usenet signature quote.
  • N Not done [14] - completely trivial mention in a DVD review: "All of the above acknowledged, this is still a Christmas ornament of a movie: a glittering glass shell gorgeously decorated on the outside but with nothing but vacuum on the inside. The plot is pedestrian both literally (we spend an excruciating amount of screen time watching dinosaurs walking…and walking…and walking) and figuratively—you could come up with a better story with one of those write-your-own-screenplay software programs. Maybe even just by sitting two lemurs in front of a keyboard." - but a classic illustration of how this phenomenon has really, truly, entered the popular consciousness.
  • Y Done [15] - not a great source, but at least suggests there is some truth in the 'I am Weasel' entry.
  • [16] - "Why Creativity Is Not like the Proverbial Typing Monkey" (backs up the claim that the IMT [the typing monkey] is proverbial) - from Cronholm
  • [17] - "Can a Computer Produce and Critique Art?" - presumably mentions the IMT in relation to computers (random generators) producing art (Shakespeare), but needs verification. Nevertheless, this is an example of the IMT being a proverbial idea that is not just used by mathematicians, but is used by computer scientists and art theorists (in addition to being used by comic strip authors, TV programme makers, authors and stand-up comedians). In fact, the recurring theme is not use in popular culture, but use by comedians. - source from Cronholm, thoughts by Carcharoth.
  • [18] - "Is the End of the World Nigh?" - no idea why this paper is referring to the IMT. If verified, this could be anything from "monkeys/computers take over the world" to "don't be silly, human creativity can't be randomly generated". - source from Cronholm, thoughts by Carcharoth.
  • Y Done [19] - independent, secondary commentary, on Newhart's comedic routine (from Google search link provided by Paul August).
  • Y Done [20] - the Washington Post on Newhart, mentioning his IMT routine - source from Paul August.
  • [21] - absolute gold - provides a history of the theorem and mentions several of the examples given here, plus several new ones not even mentioned by Reeds (eg. the Vonnegut short story 'Epicac' and 'The Universal Library', a short story by Kurd Lasswitz).
  • Y Done [22] - JSTOR link to "Tomfoolery: Stoppard's Theatrical Puns", The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 9, Theatrical Literature Special Number (1979), pp. 204-220 doi:10.2307/3506619. This mentions the infinite monkey theorem joke made by Stoppard.
  • Y Done [23] - "ENGL 363: Study Questions and Notes" by Lloyd Edward Kermode, Associate Professor, Department of English, California State University, Long Beach. Which says: "The characters often attempt to but can’t complete common sayings, concepts, and clichés. The one that Guildenstern cannot complete on this page is that if six monkeys were placed in a room with six typewriters, eventually they would write the works of Shakespeare."

Initial batch added by Carcharoth 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (more added at intervals thereafter)

[edit] New entries

Completely new entries go here, as the above section was getting a bit long:

  • [26] - On the Beach, novel by Nevil Shute, includes a reference to the monkey typewriter idea. That is the movie script. Need a reference to confirm whether it appears in the book (as the talk page of IMT indicates), in which case it dates to 1957.
Nevil Shute, On the Beach, House of Stratus; (1957) New Ed edition (October 31, 2002). ISBN 1842322761. p. 145, 146:
They turned to a discussion of the radio signals still coming from somewhere in the vicinity of Seattle ...
"How many hours' transmission, in all, were monitored?"
"About a hundred and six hours."
"And in all that time only two words have come through in clear? The rest gibberish?"
"That is correct."
The admiral said, "I don't think the words can be significant. It's probably a fortuitous transmission. After all, if an infinite number of monkeys start playing with an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will write a play from Shakespeare."
Paul August ☎ 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • N Not done - nothing to do with ITM "Epicac" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in his 1958 short story collection Welcome to the Monkey House.
  • N Not done - nothing to do with ITM Isaac Asimov's "The Monkey's Finger" (1953)
  • N Not done moved to the history section (the monkey imagery, which this article focuses on, came later, and is not used here) "The Universal Library" (1901), by Kurd Lasswitz, anthologized in Clifton Fadiman's Fantasia Mathematica.
  • N Not done - unable to verify anything other than the title (could be about over-population, for instance, no verified IMT connection) - "Fifty Million Monkeys" (October 1943), by Raymond F. Jones, Astounding Science Fiction.[27]
  • Arthur Koestler. The Case of the Midwife Toad, New York, 1972, page 30. "Neo-Darwinism does indeed carry the nineteenth-century brand of materialism to its extreme limits--to the proverbial monkey at the typewriter, hitting by pure chance on the proper keys to produce a Shakespeare sonnet." [28]
  • N Not done - unable to verify anything other than the cover artwork (would need to read the article in the magazine to verify any IMT connection, could just be a monkey and typewriter image) - The June 1980 Esquire magazine had a monkey sitting at a typewriter. The lettering across the cover asked, "Is anyone out there not writing a screenplay?" [29]
  • N Not done - no apparent direct IMT connection (would be worth looking into whether anyone has commented on this, as it is the sort of literature where a book critic might make the connection) - Vikram Chandra. Red Earth and Pouring Rain. Boston: Little Brown, 1995. Novel, with an elaborate system of nested "framing devices," the outermost one of which is that a monkey (encouraged by the monkey god Hanuman) types the story. [30]
  • In a novel, two characters discuss the glitch in a computer which causes it to scroll an endless series of meaningless symbols: He sighs. "It casts serious doubt on the old theory that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters would eventually write the Great American Novel, doesn't it?" Richard Russo, Straight Man. Random House, 1996. p. 129. [31]
  • Old mirror version? Has more details added by others, plus the Dawkins use should be mentioned, along with other educational uses, as that is one of the most well-known examples.

Initial batch by Carcharoth 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (more added at intervals thereafter)

  • A Language Log discussion by linguist Geoffrey Pullum, referring to a (now sadly disappeared) website which simulated the infinite monkey experiment and matched the output with Shakespeare's plays. (When I played it, I think the farthest it had ever got was about the first 20 characters of one of the plays.) --Zeborah 06:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing the sources

Listed here are the sources that best exemplify commentary on the phenomenon, or verifying that the example is indeed referring to the infinite monkey theorem cultural phenomenon.

[edit] Proverbial

The strongest references confirming the existence of a cultural phenomenon are references that state that the "typing monkeys" are proverbial ("A proverb (from the Latin proverbium) is a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated..."):

  • [32] - 1999 paper titled "Why Creativity Is Not like the Proverbial Typing Monkey".
  • [33] - collection of references that includes the following from Koestler in 1972: "Neo-Darwinism does indeed carry the nineteenth-century brand of materialism to its extreme limits--to the proverbial monkey at the typewriter, hitting by pure chance on the proper keys to produce a Shakespeare sonnet." (my emphasis).

[edit] Existence of the phenomenon

Some sources reinforce the claim that this phenomenom exists:

  • [34] - Washington Post article from 2002 that says "Plenty of people have had fun with the famous notion that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time could eventually write the works of Shakespeare."
  • [35] - Wired magazine article that include the infinite monkey theorem in a list of classic thought experiments. The wording used is particularly illuminating: "You know the deal: An infinite number of monkeys pecking at typewriters for an infinite length of time will "almost surely" produce the complete works of Shakespeare." (my emphasis).
  • [36] - "Monkeys, Typewriters and Networks - the Internet in the Light of the Theory of Accidental Excellence" (2001) "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters."

[edit] Educational use

Some sources indicate that this is a standard educational analogy:

  • [37] - the theorem is mentioned in a book written for non-mathematicians.

[edit] Press coverage

Some sources indicate that the phenomenon can achieve widespread press coverage:

  • [38] - collection of press cuttings on the now infamous experiment. Demonstrates something about the quality of newspaper journalism, but maybe not a lot else.

[edit] Mathematics and literature

Some sources confirm that the phenomenon of mathemetics in literature has been studied:

  • [39] - "Mathematics in Literature" (1982): "Mathematics provides writers with a rich source of themes, images, and metaphors", and includes a reference to the infinite monkey theorem. This would seem to justify the literary examples.

[edit] Existing histories

Some sources are direct examples of existing histories of the theorem, with examples similar to the ones given here, thus demonstrating that the concept of the phenomenon is not new, and crucially, that the concept of studying the phenomenon is not new:

  • [40] (2001) - mentions many examples, mostly taken from the next website.
  • [41] - Jim Reeds' history and collection of IMT references (last updated 2000, now hosted by the Infinite Monkeys experimental music/dance/performance art group).
  • [42] - "Monkeying Around with Text" (2007) - includes a brief history of the phenomenon, with literary examples.

[edit] Visual references

An interesting class of references is the visual ones, with several visual references ranging from the abstract to the crystal-clear:

  • Image:A Thousand Monkeys.png - the classic Simpsons screenshot.
  • Screenshot from the Family Guy episode, but which was deleted recently. If anyone wants to undelete it, I'll write a non free use rationale for it.
  • The episode of I Am Weasel could also be a source of a screenshot of the depiction of the theorem.
  • Picture of the album The Quality of Mercy is Not Strnen (1979) - the debut album by Leeds punk rock band the Mekons.
  • "The June 1980 Esquire magazine had a monkey sitting at a typewriter. The lettering across the cover asked, "Is anyone out there not writing a screenplay?"" - wording inside the magazine could confirm the intent of the image. Picture is here. The magazine's issue was on eBay, though bidding has now ended. (Warning: image will not remain on eBay indefinitely - I have a copy of the scan saved).
  • Cover image of Deus ex Machina, the graphic novel collection of the Animal Man comic strip.

[edit] Real use of the concept

  • [43] - experimental music/dance/performance art group (they host Jim Reeds' literary list).
  • [44] - the interactive infinite monkeys experiment, founded in 1999.

So the question is whether any of the above sources count as secondary literature about the topic? Secondary coverage of the two primary examples above (which I only discovered just now) need to be found, but the rest (apart from the primary visual references) qualify in my opinion as secondary literature. Carcharoth 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

The last source in the "histories" section is the only one that comes close: at least is about the concept as used in society, not just about the concept, and at least it is (according to the site) published somewhere. However, I don't think that is about this topic either, because that one is about the history of this concept, not about popular culture at all. (The Borges story is as close as this article and that source get, but honestly, Borges is a prominent, famous writer: high culture, not pop culture). Mangojuicetalk 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What do you think about the first five references? And what about this being a timeline or history article about the history of the concept, rather than a cultural studies article about the impact on popular culture? Carcharoth 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly? The proper place for this discussion is at Talk:Infinite monkey theorem, because the valuable part of what you're proposing would be to extend the coverage of that article in certain ways. It doesn't at all justify having a list of pop culture references, which no source but Wikipedia seems remotely interested in. Why not just redirect this back and improve the main article? Mangojuicetalk 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused now, because I have already done this. Did you not look at Infinite monkey theorem before writing the above? I have copied the introduction I wrote here, to there, which I think has improved the article. Carcharoth 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I realize that. What I'm saying is that this still doesn't justify the existence of the list of references. The references have already been cleaned up somewhat, but only a couple have any sources attributing any kind of significance to the connection, and those are significant enough to merit inclusion in text. Even there, the sources are analyses of the work in question, rather than writings about the Infinite Monkey Theorem. (I think the distinction is important, here: if we're looking to sources to justify the inclusion of those references that are considered important ones in sources, we can't really rely on analyses of individual works, because they will mention the connection no matter how important the reference is.) Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not quite sure what you are looking for. I'll quote from the article the bits I think lead to the article satisfying the "significance" criterion: "the proverbial typing monkey" (quoted twice in a footnote, and both mean the theorem when they use the phrase "typing monkey"), note: Proverbial: a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated); "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters."; "Plenty of people have had fun with the famous notion that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time could eventually write the works of Shakespeare."; "In 2003, an Arts Council funded experiment involving real monkeys and a computer keyboard received widespread press coverage."; "In 2007, the theorem was listed by Wired magazine in a list of eight classic thought experiments.". If you are not talking about overall 'article' significance, but rather want a source for each instance saying that it is significant, well, I think that is an impossible request. Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: "1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; 2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and 3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." (my emphasis). I've also outlined criteria for the timeline. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list (and never could be), but is rather a timeline, a survey, giving a few examples from each decade, and organised by genre. Have a look at List of premature obituaries. Where in that list is there an independent source for each premature obituary saying that it is an important and notable premature obituary? Carcharoth 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The premature obituary list is clearly of the 1st type, and membership is well-defined (see the introduction: it lays out what a premature obituary is). There are a few entries for people without articles, which I would think could be removed (see Mackayala Jespersen and "Mr Hopkins" - clearly unnecessary entries). Just because that list is featured doesn't mean it's perfect. Anyway, this article is not a list of the 1st type, but as you point out, is attempting to be a list of the 3rd type, except that it seems effectively impossible to make it complete, and inclusion is not well defined. The question I am still asking is: what is the overall plan for presenting information on the Infinite Monkey Theorem, and how is this article, and in particular, the list of unimportant references, a part of that plan? I am not questioning the notability or importance of the Infinite Monkey Theorem, but only the idea of having this subarticle, which doesn't seem to cover an important aspect of the topic: rather, it seems to be only a way to keep unwanted stuff out of the main article. Mangojuicetalk 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, think of it as a timeline. You could say, in the main article, that known examples range from the 1940s to the present day. But then you could also provide a timeline to show this, and this is what has been done here. That is why the ability to verify a date is important. That is one of the criteria. Inclusion is defined in a footnote: "The examples included invariably refer directly to a variation on the theme of a large number of typing monkeys producing a work of literature, usually, but not always, a work by Shakespeare. Infinite libraries, and random text generation (instead of monkeys) are also included. Trivial or incomplete references are excluded." Once the timeline has been constructed, it is too large for the main article, so it becomes its own article per WP:SUMMARY. Also, it is obviously not an indiscriminate list. There are 30 entries, if you include the "early history" ones, but lots of rejected entries can be found on this talk page (and possibly some of the ones on the list will be rejected in a future tightening up of the list). Which ones do you think could be removed? A few still need tidying up, as I didn't get the time to do everything I had planned for the article. Some entries could be turned into text (eg. the Wilensky entry should be seen in the context of the Keen quotes below), and the external links should actually be to several sites operating on the principle of the theorem. Or let me put this another way, which examples would you keep, if any? What criteria would you use? Carcharoth 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Then maybe it should be written like a timeline, and include all relevant events, not just cultural references. But honestly, the idea of having a timeline seems like an excuse to keep the list rather than a good idea. Timelines are good ideas when the topic is about a series of events: see, for instance, Virginia Tech massacre timeline or Progress of the SARS outbreak; see List of timelines and you'll find nothing that like this. A history is appropriate, but it should be written as text... and it seems to already be part of the main article. I would personally not include any references if I couldn't write meaningful, sourced text about them. Collecting the list for the sake of having the list is an exercise in trivia. Mangojuicetalk 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Borges' story is certainly relevant here. The meaning of "popular culture" here is culture as distinguished from say academic culture. There is a difference between and "popular culture" and "pop culture". Paul August ☎ 17:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Borges would certainly qualify as academic culture. And I don't understand what distinction you see between "pop" culture and "popular" culture: one is the abbreviation of the other, nothing more. Mangojuicetalk 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Popular culture" means the culture of non-mathematicians. In this case, anyway. Doesn't it? If, for example, an article were called "quantum theory in popular culture", then "popular culture" would mean the works of non-physicists. If it were "Hagia Sophia in popular culture", maybe it would mean the culture of those whose work is in fields other than architecture or religion or maybe history. Etc. Michael Hardy 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going by the notions presented in popular culture. Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There are claims that the article popular culture is misleading. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoppard

Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, currently mentioned under the "Literature" section, is a very nice use of probability in theatre, but I'm not sure the account given in the article is correct. In the first Act we encounter a running theme of Guildenstern flipping one coin after another, with all coming up heads. They discuss the implications of this (not realizing they are characters in the play Hamlet, destined to die). Part of their exchange is the following:

GUIL (musing): The law of probability, it has been oddly asserted, is something to do with the proposition that if six monkeys (he has surprised himself) … if six monkeys were
ROS: Game?
GUIL: Were they?
ROS: Are you?
GUIL (understanding): Game. (Flips a coin) The law of averages, if I have got this right, means that if six monkeys were thrown up in the air for long enough they would land on their tails about as often as they would land on their
ROS: Heads. (He picks up the coin.)
GUIL: Which even at first glance does not strike one as a particularly rewarding speculation, in either sense, even without the monkeys. I mean, you wouldn't bet on it. I mean I would, but you wouldn't … (As he flips a coin.)
ROS: Heads.

(A few coins later we learn it has been 85 heads in a row.) At least, one version I have found says this. However, the German Wikipedia article describes yet another version, with a million monkeys (Affen):

In einem Stück des britischen Dramatikers Tom Stoppard mit dem Titel „Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead“, das die Geschichte des Hamlet aus einer andere Perspektive wiedergibt, sagt eine Figur: „Wenn eine Million Affen …“ und kann dann nicht weitersprechen – möglicherweise, weil sie selbst Teil des Shakespearschen Universums ist und durch Aussprache des Theorems ihre eigene Fiktionalität erklärte. Der Satz endet mit einem anderen Thema.

In a review of a production from 2006, there seems no doubt that the allusion is, in part, to the infinite monkey theorem; however, the number six is also seen as an allusion to Pirandello’s well-known Six Characters in Search of an Author. Nicely, both the play and the review give us some idea of how well-known and influential the theorem is outside of mathematics.

Of course, the play has existed since 1964 in various versions, beginning as a one-act play and evolving and expanding through stage productions and even a cinematic release (for which Stoppard wrote the screenplay and directed). It would be nice to pin down what appears where. --KSmrqT 07:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't labelled my sources above very well, but I have two Stoppard reference up there, and the stuff you've provided here will help as well. My references are:
  • [45] - JSTOR link to "Tomfoolery: Stoppard's Theatrical Puns", The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 9, Theatrical Literature Special Number (1979), pp. 204-220 doi:10.2307/3506619. This mentions the infinite monkey theorem joke made by Stoppard.
  • [46] - "ENGL 363: Study Questions and Notes" by Lloyd Edward Kermode, Associate Professor, Department of English, California State University, Long Beach. Which says: "The characters often attempt to but can’t complete common sayings, concepts, and clichés. The one that Guildenstern cannot complete on this page is that if six monkeys were placed in a room with six typewriters, eventually they would write the works of Shakespeare."
The first one I can't access to read it - can anyone confirm whether it says anything meaningful, or whether it is just a passing reference? The second one says that at least someone has interpreted a version of the play as "if six monkeys were placed in a room with six typewriters, eventually they would write the works of Shakespeare" - whether that interpretation is right or not doesn't matter too much, thankfully, but if it is a borderline interpretation it would be nice to get an opposing view. The review you provide also shows that at least that critic picked up on it. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I also found another course (this time a maths one, not an English one), which correctly quotes the passage, and then says: "The monkeys in this passage are carelessly taken from a thought-experiment: Six extremely long-lived monkeys, seated at extremely durable typewriters, are allowed to press the keys at random. It is asserted that sooner or later they would, by sheer chance, type out the complete text of Shakespeare's Hamlet." - so it not uncommon for people to assume that the monkeys that Guildenstern mentions are the infinite monkeys of this theorem, but we certainly cannot say this. We have to quote others here to get the connection, as (unlike other cases) there is no clear-cut quote we can provide. One interpretation that some people make is that the surprised pause is because Guildenstern cannot refer to Shakespeare or Hamlet, but again, that needs to be very carefully sourced. Carcharoth 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
And the "million monkeys" quote seems to be just plain wrong, as only a few sources give this version. Carcharoth 12:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The JSTOR link above to "Tomfoolery: Stoppard's Theatrical Puns" discusses the passage for about half a page, but does not comment on any connection with mathematics. I am not aware of any version of the play which would make the reference more explicit (German wikipedia entry cannot be independently verified). Note that the passage doesn't mention typewriters, either. It appears to be one of the famous Stoppard's double entendre puns/hints. As such, it's a highly dubious reference for the present article (too subtle and highly dependent on interpretation). There is a vast body of critical literature on Stoppard; however, I do not recall "infinite monkey theorem" interpretations of this passage in a couple of the books that I have read. I suggest removing this item. Arcfrk 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that reference - thanks. The Stoppard item should be recast as an example of mathematics in literature - the connection with the theorem being that some have made this connection. It might need removing eventually, but I'd prefer to do that at the final pruning stage, rather than now. By the way, I found this paper on a Google search, but like the JSTOR paper, I can't see what is being said. Can you help? Carcharoth 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the Stoppard entry, since, as much as I like Stoppard, it simply does not belong here. For the convenience of transplantation in the future, I am enclosing the deleted text. Arcfrk 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've added nowiki tags so the ref text is visible. Carcharoth 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

  • 1966 — [[Tom Stoppard]]'s play ''[[Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead]]'' deals with themes of [[existentialism]] and [[probability]], including a coin-flipping scene. During this scene, one of Guildenstern's lines refers to monkeys and includes a stage direction that the character stops in surprise: <blockquote>"The law of probability, it has been oddly asserted, is something to do with the proposition that if six monkeys… (''he has surprised himself'') …if six monkeys were…". </blockquote> Guildenstern later goes on to talk about flipping monkeys, rather than coins, but the reference to monkeys, the overarching theme of Shakespeare, and the surprised pause in conjunction with the play's theme of the characters being on the verge of self-awareness, has led some commentators, including academics, theatre critics, and philosophy teachers, to interpret this as an indirect reference to the infinite monkey theorem.<ref>[http://www.csulb.edu/~lkermode/engl363/ Stoppard – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.] R&Gnotes.htm ENGL 363: Study Questions and Notes. Lloyd Edward Kermode, Associate Professor, Department of English, California State University, Long Beach. "The characters often attempt to but can't complete common sayings, concepts, and clichés. The one that Guildenstern cannot complete on this page is that if six monkeys were placed in a room with six typewriters, eventually they would write the works of Shakespeare."</ref> <ref>[http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/theater/2006/theater0825.html The Rest Is Violence], Trey Graham, Washington City Paper, 25 August 2006. This review of a revivial of the play refers to the theorem ("An infinite number of critics […] as with the monkeys-typing-Shakespeare theorem…"), but points out that the use of six monkeys refers to "the play’s debt to [[Pirandello]]'s ''[[Six Characters in Search of an Author]]''". </ref> <ref>[http://www.math.grinnell.edu/~stone/courses/stoppard/references.xhtml We act on scraps of information], John David Stone, Lecturer in Computer Science and Philosophy, Grinnell College. "The monkeys in this passage are carelessly taken from a thought-experiment: Six extremely long-lived monkeys, seated at extremely durable typewriters, are allowed to press the keys at random. It is asserted that sooner or later they would, by sheer chance, type out the complete text of Shakespeare's Hamlet."</ref>

[edit] Reference desk thread(s)

I found a reference desk thread, just in case anyone is interested.

Please add more above if you find them. Carcharoth 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Beach by Nevil Shute

I see that the mention in Nevil Shute's novel On the Beach is not in this article. If someone has the details, could they add that? Michael Hardy 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The mention is above. Will add that soon. Carcharoth 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't have time tonight - was busy writing the introduction. Will try and do it later. Carcharoth 02:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Keen's work, as influenced by the Infinite monkey theorem

Carcharoth, did you look at these?

  • [47] "Amateur-hour America; How today's Internet is killing our culture", Andrew Keen, Chicago Sun-Times, Jun 3, 2007.
  • [48] A book review of Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur".

Paul August ☎ 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of including those in an "internet analogy" section, probably just mentioning the Willensky quote (which is now quite famous), and mentioning the Keen quote as a recent example of this. There are lots of such "human=monkeys, product=internet" analogies out there! Were you thinking of referring to that quote in a different way? Carcharoth 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typography

I have systematically replaced hyphen (and double hyphen) with an em dash ("—") where appropriate (essentially, everywhere except in URLs), per WP:DASH. Likewise "..." is now an ellipsis character ("…"). It would be good to use this better typography in future edits; both characters are readily available on the "Insert:" line below the edit window.

I do wonder if all those dashes are helpful. --KSmrqT 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood dashes, though I have tried reading WP:DASH a few times. Thanks for that. I didn't realise they were available for insertion in the edit window. I only use that selection for a few things, like ref, comments, and so on. The article still needs a lot of tidying up, using citeweb for example (or at least giving the date the webpages were accessed), and various other things here and there. Any help would be appreciated. Carcharoth 10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit (layperson's use of infinite)

Regarding this recent edit: "Lay persons sometimes refer to "infinite monkeys", whereas in the usage of mathematicians that is incorrect if it means "infinitely many monkeys" or "an infinite number of monkeys". It is not each individual monkey that is infinite, thus not "infinite monkeys", but infinitely many monkeys. Furthermore, a single monkey with an infinite amount of time is enough." - I find it confusing and unclear. The phrase "the usage of mathematicians" is clumsy. Furthermore, the above explanation seems to contradict itself: "incorrect if it means "infinitely many monkeys"" and "not "infinite monkeys", but infinitely many monkeys" seem to be contradicting each other. I'm removing this until a better wording can be devised. Carcharoth 00:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"infinite monkeys" = two or more monkeys, each one of which, by itself, is infinite.
"infinitely many monkeys" = more than any finite number of monkeys.
"an infinite number of monkeys" = more than any finite number of monkeys.

The second and third phrases are synonymous. The first one means something different. I'm having a hard time seeing where you find the contradiction. Michael Hardy 01:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but your paragraph didn't say that. Let me suggest how your paragraph could be changed to actually say that:
"Lay persons sometimes refer to "infinite monkeys", whereas in the usage of mathematicians that is only correct if it means "infinitely many monkeys"
WRONG!!! That's the exact opposite of what I was saying!! I was saying that "infinite monkeys" is grossly incorrect if it means "infinitely many monkeys". That's the main point! Michael Hardy 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Please calm down. Your use of all caps and exclamation marks is not going to help here. If you avoid such embellishments, it will be easier to get your point across. In case you hadn't noticed, I agree with what you are trying to say, but I think the way it is being said needs to be improved. Let me try and explain again. You say:

"Lay persons sometimes refer to "infinite monkeys", whereas in the usage of mathematicians that is incorrect if it means "infinitely many monkeys" or "an infinite number of monkeys""

I take this to mean: "Lay persons sometimes refer to "infinite monkeys". Mathematicians say that this is incorrect if by "infinitely many monkeys", the lay person intended to say "infinitely many monkeys" or "an infinite number of monkeys"." (now, I realise this is not what you are trying to say, so that is why I'm saying "hang on, this needs to be rephrased).
Now do you see why I had a problem with what you said? On re-reading, I think the confusion is from the clumsy use of the phrase "in the usage of mathematicians" (why don't you simply say "mathematicians use the phrase to mean"?). I think you mean:"Lay persons, when referring to "infinitely many monkeys", sometimes use the imprecise term "infinite monkeys". Mathematicians say that this is incorrect because they use the term "infinite monkeys" in a more precise sense to mean monkeys that are infinite."
And please don't chop up my replies when replying to them. It makes it even more difficult to see what is going on. I am perfectly aware of what you are trying to say, and I'm trying to work with you to get a clearer wording so that the readers of Wikipedia won't be confused. Carcharoth 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

or "an infinite number of monkeys". It is not each individual monkey that is infinite, thus "infinite monkeys" is incorrect, but infinitely many monkeys is correct. Furthermore, a single monkey with an infinite amount of time is enough." (changes in bold)

Is this better? Carcharoth 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. For what it is worth, I think it is just imprecise and idiomatic language. When people say "infinite monkeys", they invariably do mean infinitely many monkeys. If you suggested to them they were talking about an individual monkey being infinite, they would look at you in a funny way and tell you not to be silly. When people talk about "infinite time", they mean an infinite amount of time. It just so happens that idiomatic English often, sloppily, drops the precision of "amount". It's like when people say "I'm 53". They should say "I'm 53 years old", but the precision is dropped when the context makes it obvious what the person is talking about. I also find it condescending to talk down to the reader in this way. It turns the article towards being a maths lesson, rather than an encyclopedia article. Maybe put your comment in a footnote? Carcharoth 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
When people say "infinite monkeys", they invariably do mean infinitely many monkeys.
Wrong. When confused non-mathematicians say infinite monkeys, sometimes they mean infinitely many monkeys. But that usage is incorrect. Michael Hardy 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on. The most you can say is that that usage would be incorrect if it were used in a mathematical context. Many people refer to those little loops of metal that go around your fingers as rings, even though they almost never have the underlying structure of an abelian group (let alone a multiplicative operation). That doesn't make this usage incorrect; it makes it non-mathematical. Tesseran 06:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
But this is a mathematical context! Michael Hardy 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The should say "infinite" monkeys ONLY if they mean two or more monkeys each of which is infinite. To do otherwise is silly. And it's what many people do. Michael Hardy 18:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Language may be sloppy when you're talking in a context where these distinctions don't matter. I think this should be more than a footnote sincec the confusion is relied on in the very title of this article. Michael Hardy 18:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not primarily about the theorem. Infinite monkey theorem can go into detail in the article. I think this article should keep semantics and popular misconceptions to footnotes. Especially something as prone to misunderstanding as this. Carcharoth 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)