Think of the more interesting, shorter writings that monkey would come up with. Would be quite instructional, I imagine.
Cheers, Lawry Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:49 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must > also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non > repetitive) > But because you would have to convert the numbers to letters, you > would need to group them and since you would get many numbers over 26 > it would take a very long while to find a string that had the works > without some numbers higher than 26 plus any numbers assigned to > punctuation. > > So if you instead used a 26 (or maybe 30ish for punctuation) based > counting system where each number had a corresponding letter then you > would find the complete works of Shakespeare much much sooner in the > series. > > The accountant would appreciate this considering the saving in monkeys > and typewriters. > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> PS: Why do I bother? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Of course we're all familiar with the "clustering" phenomenon that occurs >>> when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point >>> during their "lifespan" type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in >>> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them. >>> >>> So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning: >>> >>> An actuary, being fully aware of such "clustering" proceeds to purchase a >>> thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will >>> have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters >>> nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare in >>> the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them. The actuary cries "Eureka!" >>> and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get >>> to the bottom of this improbable event. >>> >>> The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written >>> by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say: >>> >>> 1) "You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event >>> demonstrates you have not understood clustering." >>> >>> 2) "You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time >>> and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but >>> your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of >>> Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to >>> an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company." >>> >>> ? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Are you familiar with "clustering"? just because a rare event happens >>>> twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You >>>> just happened to hit the probability twice. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Think about this like an actuary, folks: >>>>> >>>>> When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model >>>>> says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and >>>>> the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs >>>>> revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that >>>>> model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- >>>>> if >>>>> the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one >>>>> might >>>>> not invest all that much money in revising the model. >>>>> >>>>> However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of >>>>> nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction >>>>> events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the >>>>> model >>>>> so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of >>>>> line >>>>> with reality. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a >>>>>> million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events >>>>>> that >>>>>> independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1/(365*100)^2 >>>>>> = 1/1332250000 >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand >>>>>> for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not a coincidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor >>>>>> of 1000. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object >>>>>>> approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and >>>>>>> direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the >>>>>>> main >>>>>>> mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible >>>>>>> explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion >>>>>>> technology. >>>>>>> Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can >>>>>>> come >>>>>>> up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the >>>>>>> source >>>>>>> footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation >>>>>>> with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a >>>>>>> optical >>>>>>> artifact that would also explain those fragments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events >>>>>>> -- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events >>>>>>> seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently >>>>>>> become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing >>>>>>> inside of >>>>>>> geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public >>>>>>> announcement >>>>>>> of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest approach on >>>>>>> Feb 15, >>>>>>> 2012. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to >>>>>>> cause widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense >>>>>>> shockwaves correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for >>>>>>> decades. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor -- >>>>>>> appear statistically independent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're >>>>>>> potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the >>>>>>> phenomenon of >>>>>>> public announcement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is >>>>>>> hard for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> land, and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is >>>>>>> land we can increase the expected frequency only a few fold at best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent >>>>>>>> fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video >>>>>>>> shows. As >>>>>>>> for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere, >>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> is the common sense? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up >>>>>>>> in this Russian video, in slo-mo. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast >>>>>>>> moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode >>>>>>>> (at >>>>>>>> about 27 seconds). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian >>>>>>>> military, why not give it some credence? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NASA's blog states: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is your cite, Terry? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
