AE86 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:51 pm

juansweetpotato wrote: More on the Infinite Monkey Theorem

Spoiler:

There is a straightforward proof of this theorem. As an introduction, recall that if two events are statistically independent, then the probability of both happening equals the product of the probabilities of each one happening independently. For example, if the chance of rain in Moscow on a particular day in the future is 0.4 and the chance of an earthquake in San Francisco on any particular day is 0.00003, then the chance of both happening on the same day is 0.4 × 0.00003 = 0.000012, assuming that they are indeed independent.

Suppose the typewriter has 50 keys, and the word to be typed is banana. If the keys are pressed randomly and independently, it means that each key has an equal chance of being pressed. Then, the chance that the first letter typed is 'b' is 1/50, and the chance that the second letter typed is a is also 1/50, and so on. Therefore, the chance of the first six letters spelling banana is

(1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) = (1/50)6 = 1/15 625 000 000 ,
less than one in 15 billion, but not zero, hence a possible outcome.

From the above, the chance of not typing banana in a given block of 6 letters is 1 − (1/50)6. Because each block is typed independently, the chance Xn of not typing banana in any of the first n blocks of 6 letters is

{\displaystyle X_{n}=\left(1-{\frac {1}{50^{6}}}\right)^{n}.} X_n=\left(1-\frac{1}{50^6}\right)^n.
As n grows, Xn gets smaller. For an n of a million, Xn is roughly 0.9999, but for an n of 10 billion Xn is roughly 0.53 and for an n of 100 billion it is roughly 0.0017. As n approaches infinity, the probability Xn approaches zero; that is, by making n large enough, Xn can be made as small as is desired,[2][note 1] and the chance of typing banana approaches 100%.

The same argument shows why at least one of infinitely many monkeys will produce a text as quickly as it would be produced by a perfectly accurate human typist copying it from the original. In this case Xn = (1 − (1/50)6)n where Xn represents the probability that none of the first n monkeys types banana correctly on their first try. When we consider 100 billion monkeys, the probability falls to 0.17%, and as the number of monkeys n increases, the value of Xn – the probability of the monkeys failing to reproduce the given text – approaches zero arbitrarily closely. The limit, for n going to infinity, is zero. So the probability of the word banana appearing at some point after an infinite number of keystrokes is equal to one.

I agree with your maths, and that is why I think it speaks towards a designer much more for the following reason.

You use the case "Banana.", and one thing to note here is that if you were simply extend that sentence (i.e.) this one, you would have a 112 character sequence." (excluding this part, capitalisation and spaces).

The longer the sequence gets, the chance of it being "correct" are exponentially less. So using your maths let's see where it takes us:

(1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x

Spoiler:

(1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26 x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26 x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26 x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26 x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26) x (1/26)...

...and you end up with 3 x 10^158.

Now there's only been 10^26 nanoseconds since the Big Bang (1 billion nanoseconds per second), so even if every nanosecond was dedicated to the random keystrokes by a now 14.7 billion year old monkey we're still off by a factor of 132 at forming even a 112 letter sentence, excluding capitalisation and spaces.

One short protein chain in DNA (excluding chirality "handedness") can consist of 150-200 amino acids, all of which need to assemble in a sequence specific manner, it is safe to say it is vastly more complex than a sentence of the English language on a Cambodian expat forum. So given the statistical absurdity (btw, 10^50 is statistically absurd) of a monkey typing a simple 112 character sentence, I find it much more believable that there was intelligence behind the design of the DNA in our bodies, just as I would never attribute the works of Shakespeare (or even this post for that matter) to the work of an infinite monkey powered text generating entity.

You mention theoretical maths, but DNA is already a physical reality just as people type readable sentences every day. Sure if we had close to infinite time and infinite monkeys (of which there's nowhere near enough evidence to even come close to arguing for such), we might reach a chance of something like a DNA molecule occurring. The point is though, just by observation we can see that is not the nature of where we live and exist in.

AE86 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:48 pm

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:26 pm Here's a couple. The link contains more examples

Spoiler:

10 of the Worst Terror Attacks by Extreme Christians and Far-Right White Men
Most of the terrorist activity in the U.S. in recent years has come not from Muslims, but from radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.

. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-r ... -white-men

Those are isolated over sensationalised incidences, and really don't compare to the atrocities radical Muslims are commiting, even in countries like the Philippines or Indonesia.