The Infinite Monkey Theorem
By now you have read that the “Infinite Monkey Theorem” is – if not impossible – is at least so highly improbable that it may as well be. Three weeks ago the BBC broke the news in the popular press that two Australian mathematicians who study the magical arts of probability concluded there are not enough monkeys, durable computers, or time – especially time – for monkeys to write the complete works of Shakespeare. On the other hand, there apparently was enough time for two mathematicians to complete the calculations, but that could simply be an artifact of living in Australia where – if you can believe the Guardian political cartoonist, Andrew Marlton (“First Dog on the Moon”) – life is even stranger than in the U.S.
They studied the monkey theorem with great interest, and concluded, there is about “a 5% chance that a single chimp [working full time] would successfully type the word ‘bananas’ in its own lifetime.” But not Hamlet. Even managing “To be, or not to be, that is the question” is – in fact – out of the question. The universe would end first.
Mastering even a short play by pounding randomly on a typewriter keyboard is definitely “not to be.” According to the College of Social Sciences and Humanities at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, the collected works of Shakespeare contain about 836,000 words. His shortest play – Comedy of Errors – contains about 15,000 words. And Hamlet – the longest – is just shy of a whopping 31,000.
Evidently, someone at George Mason University – like the Australian mathematicians – had the time to count the words in Shakespeare plays. No mean feat considering the authorship of some of the 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narratives, and a handful of questionable verses are in dispute – and, the ones which are not have textual variations that are not entirely clear. Of course, this just means whomever counted the words was probably a tenure-line professor who found an obscure journal willing to publish the findings. Graduate assistants, adjunct faculty, and lecturers work only slightly less hours than indentured servants, sleep only four hours a night, and receive their coffee intravenously, so it is doubtful they had time to count the words in 400 year old manuscripts.
Um … just kidding. They drink their coffee like the rest of us, but only because they receive Starbucks gift cards as part of their health benefits.
The odds were stacked against monkeys from the start. Shakespeare not only used a lot of words, he used a lot of different words. Mostly, he made them up. Something you’d think monkeys might be good at, but – evidently not. The authors of “The Story of English” tell us that
“… Shakespeare had one of the largest vocabularies of any English writer, some 30,000 words. (Estimates of an educated person’s vocabulary today vary, but it is probably about half this,15,000.) He was, to use his own phrase, ‘a man of fire-new words’.”
Perhaps the monkeys should start with Margaret Rey’s “Curious George” and work up to Hamlet. The vocabulary is not nearly so challenging and the subject matter might be more interesting for monkeys. Still, it is 1800 words long. And, of course, punctuation might be an issue. I’ve never mastered punctuation, so I’m willing to cut the monkeys some slack. Who, after all – besides Mrs. Zwick, my tenth grade English teacher – really understands the correct use of the comma, semicolon, or colon. She’s dead now, so that information may be lost as well.
Maybe Kate Turabian – who wrote the impossible to comprehend Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, first published in 1937 – aka the “Chicago Manual of Style” – knows. If Shakespeare had to conform to Turabian we wouldn’t be having this conversation. He would have given up and the monkeys would be off the hook.
But, alas, Ms. Turabian has also passed, so we needn’t worry too much about punctuation.
Interest in the Infinite Monkey Theorem is much greater than one might suspect. In May The Scientific American noted,
“In one of the most bizarre research experiments in the history of mathematics, researchers at the University of Plymouth in England gave six Celebes crested macaques at the nearby Paignton Zoo a keyboard. From May 1 to June 22, 2002, the animals let off steam by banging at the keys. The letters they typed were transmitted to the Internet. The scientists’ aim was to test the ‘infinite monkey theorem’ … But—surprise, surprise—the primates’ poetry fell short. After more than seven weeks, the macaques produced only one five-page document, consisting almost entirely of the letter ‘S.’ The researchers nonetheless released the result as a book.”
The macaques eventually smashed the computer and then used it for a latrine which is why the experiment ended slightly short of infinity. One can’t fault the macaques. There are days when any reasonably intelligent individual might want to “do a macaque” and demolish their computer.
Not all monkeys are into literature. Some appear better at picking locks than typing – or at least seizing opportunity when someone else leaves locks unlocked. Perhaps you heard about the forty-three monkeys that escaped from the Alpha Genesis medical research facility in Yemassee, South Carolina. Thirty have been recaptured – they had a weakness for Fruit Loops. For a few days Yemassee was sort of like a scene from Jumanji. Police were telling people to secure their doors and windows and not to attempt to feed or capture the monkeys.
Though its origins are a bit obscure, the Infinite Monkey Theorem is not as frivolous as one might think. Most sources trace it back to French mathematician Émile Borel who used the example in 1913 as an “amusing thought experiment” to illustrate “statistical mechanics and irreversibility.” Which – so I am told – is related to “Brownian motion” named for botanist Robert Brown who published a study in 1827 about life’s small random fluctuations. Which is somehow related to Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
Or so I’m told.
The Infinite Monkey Theorem even gets a mention by Stephen Hawking in “A Brief History of Time.” He comes to pretty much the same conclusion as the Australian Mathematicians but without all the math. At least he appears to. In a word or two pretty he much knocks the currently popular Borchardt Infinite Universe Theory into the trash bin.
In the end, I think none of this bodes well for someone like me who is trying to master the art and craft of writing in my mid-seventies. I am also trying to learn Spanish, get reacquainted with sketch art and the guitar, improve my research skills, cobble together simple projects in the shop without losing fingers, an eye, or the rest of my hearing, and try to do something to make my little corner of the world a better place for everyone. Time – of course – is against me.
Do I hear Peter O’Toole singing the theme song from the Man from La Mancha?
Of course, that is the point, isn’t it. There is never enough time — and there never will be — to learn all the stuff we want to learn, do all the stuff we want to do, to become the person we want to be. I am at peace – though not entirely comfortable – with the notion that I will “have shuffled off this mortal coil” not having mastered much, done as much good as I would like to have done, and am leaving more than a few loose ends and half-done projects behind.
Of course, I avoid math whenever possible so that makes life a little easier. I follow the Norm Abrams dictum in the shop — “never measure unless you have to.”
Yours, with apologies to monkeys, Shakespeare, Mrs. Zwick, Kate Turabian, Peter O’Toole, and Norm Abrams; trying to avoid the obvious parallels between the Infinite Monkey Theorem and the president-elect’s choices for cabinet members; and meditating on Psalm 71:14-20
rlw
=======================
NOTES
Monkeys will never type Shakespeare -- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c748kmvwyv9o
First Dog on the Moon - https://firstdogonthemoon.com.au
“To be, or not to be” – Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet, Act lll Scene 1 — https://poets.org/poem/hamlet-act-iii-scene-i-be-or-not-be
Shakespeare plays by word count – https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/plays_numwords.php
Robert McCrum, William Cran, & Robert MacNeil (1986). The Story of English, NY: Viking, p.102
Mathematical Case for Monkeys Producing Shakespeare—Eventually — https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mathematical-case-for-monkeys-producing-shakespeare-eventually/
Alpha Genesis Monkeys escape — https://apnews.com/article/monkeys-escape-alpha-genesis-south-carolina-66a78279a7abe57c5f8fd0953359368a
Emile Borel – http://scihi.org/emile-borel-infinite-monkey-problem/
Brownian Motion – https://www.britannica.com/science/Brownian-motion
Stephen Hawking (1988, 2013). A Brief History of Time, NY: Random House. On Brownian Motion cf pp 82-83; on Infinite Universe Theory see chap. 8 “The Origin and Fate of the Universe.” It is a slow but fascinating read, but I confess, I’m not always sure what I am reading.
Infinite Universe Theory – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221706053_Infinite_universe_theory
“shuffled off this mortal coil” – Hamlet, Act III, Scene I – https://poets.org/poem/hamlet-act-iii-scene-i-be-or-not-be
“never measure unless you have to” – (paraphrase of “never measure unless you have no choice”) Norm Abrams (1996). Measure Twice, Cut Once. NY: Little Brown & Co., cf The New Yankee Workshop and This Old House.