"Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!" and then one day, we'll wake up, and the Statue of Liberty will be buried in sand. 
Infinite amount of monkeys playing chess
Sort:
Sep 1, 2011
0
#182
TheGrobe wrote:
At least the quality of discussion on the internet should go up.
+1
We have the answer for this thread already. If infinite number of monkeys are put to a space to play chess against each other, then infinite number of them will also play it.
Elroch wrote:
Yes, chess is a game of chance when played by two (theoretical) monkeys. With real monkeys, a big barrier is them playing legal moves. But a suitable computer interface would make them only able to make legal moves and quite easily.
So then it must be a game of chance when played by two people - to some extent. QED (in another thread).
No, chess is not a game of chance when played by two humans who understand the purpose and objective of the game.
That is like saying:
When a blind pitcher pitches to a blind batter, then it is mere chance if the batter manages to hit the ball. Therefore, it must also be mere chance if a seeing pitcher pitches to a seeing batter and the batter manages to hit the ball.
That is non-sequitur, i.e., does not follow.
Application of the Weierstrass M Test shows clearly that, as the games would for an infinite number of Republicans, the monkeys' games would converge to the Latvian Gambit.
So does that mean that the games of an infinite number of democrats would eventually converge to the Cabbage Attack?
Teary_Oberon wrote:
No, chess is not a game of chance when played by two humans who understand the purpose and objective of the game.
Chess isn't purely a game of chance - of course it isn't - just as it isn't purely a game of skill. But there is a chance element in, I would say, almost every single game of chess.
If someone plays like a monkey, even for one move - selecting a legal move at random - then I would contend that chance has entered the game. So what about a person who selects a legal move on the basis that it seems reasonable, but without knowing for sure?
You seem to be saying that knowing the purpose and objective of the game makes all the difference. So what about a child who knows the legal moves but doesn't yet know the purpose and objective of the game? You play a game against the child, tell him or her the objective, and then play a second game. Are you really saying the first game is a game of chance while the second one isn't? That seems too 'magical' to me.
There is an element of chance in baseball too, and in blackjack. It's just a matter of degree.
Teary_Oberon wrote:
So does that mean that the games of an infinite number of democrats would eventually converge to the Cabbage Attack?
Oh please, be serious. The Bong Cloud, of course.
A side note: when applied to Canadian political parties, the Weierstrass M Test indicates failure to converge, a consequence of non-decaying vascillatory behaviour. Meaning then, that while monkeys can unite to achieve a purpose, Canadian politicians cannot.
What about the second law of thermodynamics which states that everything will go from a state of order to a state of disorder. so the monkeys could be sat down at a fully laid out chess board but eventually it would result in chaos so it would never work
Sep 3, 2011
0
#193
A far bigger problem is stopping the monkeys from evolving into something intelligent enough to find something better to do.
Elroch wrote:
A far bigger problem is stopping the monkeys from evolving into something intelligent enough to find something better to do.
Does that mean that all of us posting in this forum haven't yet evolved enough to find something better to do? :/
Puchiko wrote:
LordNazgul wrote:
Would an infinite number of monkeys eventually fly like birds ?
Actually, yes. I studied the Uncertainty Principle in Physics about two months back
Basically, it means that we cannot know the time and Energy (--->location) of a particle with a minimal error at the same time. So if we focus on the time (in 10^-32 s range), we'll have a huge error in kinetic energy, so the chimpanzee can be several metres above ground-for that 10^-32 of a second. And if you think about how many particles in a chimpanzee, the stakes are even lower. But yes, with an infinite number of chimps in an infinite amount of time, they'll fly.Or will they ? !
Maybe the chimps will both fly and stay on the ground simultaneously (but just as long as we don't look at them and cause the probability to implode on itself...)
Teary_Oberon wrote:
Maybe the chimps will both fly and stay on the ground simultaneously (but just as long as we don't look at them and cause the probability to implode on itself...)
Schrodinger's Monkeys !
moduspawnens wrote:
Teary_Oberon wrote:
Maybe the chimps will both fly and stay on the ground simultaneously (but just as long as we don't look at them and cause the probability to implode on itself...)
Schrodinger's Monkeys !
Genius! :D
1pawndown wrote:
Infinite attempts at anything will result in all possibilities being reached. So what is the point? If I play an infinite number of games against a Master I might win one?
I will prove the statement (the first sentence) false:
"All possibilities" can only be accessed through the Set of Everything.
The Set of Everything does not exist. QED
If you meant "All possible chess games," this argument doesn't hold (that is, the truth of the statement goes undetermined until further argument).
I will deliver a proof that the Set of Everything doesn't exist upon request.
Oh man, just what I feared: They're better than us at it too.
At least the quality of discussion on the internet should go up.