Candidate Master MS Jean.
Infinite amount of monkeys playing chess
Sort:
Sep 6, 2011
0
#263
OH ......she smiles ...well I believed the grobe first because he at least has an Avatar.
Mrguy888 is just another grey pawn in the chessboard sea of ### squares 
???? How many squares on a chessboard..
MsJean wrote:
OH ......she smiles ...well I believed the grobe first because he at least has an Avatar.
Myguy888 is just another grey pawn in the chessboard sea of ### squares
???? How many squares on a chessboard..
Did you just claim me? I am not your guy. I will assume it was a typo.
MsJean wrote:
OH ......she smiles ...well I believed the grobe first because he at least has an Avatar.
Myguy888 is just another grey pawn in the chessboard sea of ### squares
???? How many squares on a chessboard..
Depends on how small the masters feet are.
Sep 6, 2011
0
#266
MsJean wrote:
OH ......she smiles ...well I believed the grobe first because he at least has an Avatar.
Mrguy888 is just another grey pawn in the chessboard sea of ### squares
???? How many squares on a chessboard..
@mrguy888...claim you?..What are you talking about..I dont see anything 
Musikamole wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Musikamole wrote:
ivandh wrote:
George I: would an infinite number of trolls eventually post a useful comment?
Faulty analogy. Trolls, as irritating as they are, do possess a crude form of human intelligence. Monkeys only have a high form of animal intelligence, i.e., sign language. It's like my dog Bubba telling me he wants to go outside, nothing more.
Faulty recognition. George laid into a guy for no reason, and I am calling him a troll.
+1
cool it off guys
ivandh wrote:
Functions of infinity are not always infinite. The most famous example of this is Gabriel's Horn, which is a geometric shape that has infinite surface area, but finite volume.
If we could express the number of monkeys who play chess as a function of the total number of monkeys, the limit of this function at infinity may or may not diverge (that is, approach infinity).
The question is whether this supposed function is one that has diminishing marginal gains, which would suggest, though it wouldn't prove, that the number of monkeys who will play chess is a finite number.
I if the original creator of this monkey business would understand your whatever metrics
Sep 7, 2011
0
#269
chidumira wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Functions of infinity are not always infinite. The most famous example of this is Gabriel's Horn, which is a geometric shape that has infinite surface area, but finite volume.
If we could express the number of monkeys who play chess as a function of the total number of monkeys, the limit of this function at infinity may or may not diverge (that is, approach infinity).
The question is whether this supposed function is one that has diminishing marginal gains, which would suggest, though it wouldn't prove, that the number of monkeys who will play chess is a finite number.
I if the original creator of this monkey business would understand your whatever metrics
Here is lesson one...never argue with Ivandh...you will always lose !
MsJean wrote:
chidumira wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Functions of infinity are not always infinite. The most famous example of this is Gabriel's Horn, which is a geometric shape that has infinite surface area, but finite volume.
If we could express the number of monkeys who play chess as a function of the total number of monkeys, the limit of this function at infinity may or may not diverge (that is, approach infinity).
The question is whether this supposed function is one that has diminishing marginal gains, which would suggest, though it wouldn't prove, that the number of monkeys who will play chess is a finite number.
I if the original creator of this monkey business would understand your whatever metrics
Here is lesson one...never argue with Ivandh...you will always lose !
This belongs over here:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/what-the-newbees-should-know-about-chesscom
Monkeys play chess ????
1pawndown wrote:
Monkeys play chess ????
Duh they do, there are over 3 million of them on this site.
I'm not so sure we're all that great.
lol
Who could mistake a human for a monkey?
@TheGrobe, Teary's sentence beginning with "If" had no relevance since we were both assuming the number of electrons in the Universe was finite. I merely sketched a construction of an infinite set of distinct concepts relating to a finite set of objects.
Amusingly, my construction was only entirely valid to a classical physicist, since in quantum physics the concepts I described are not all well-defined. The indistinguishability of electrons means that while one can correctly refer to sets of a certain number of electrons, there is a problem with the referring to particular subsets of a set of electrons. Even if one considers a set of electrons each of which has an empty cubic light year around it, uncertainty means that they are not quite distinct from each other!
I believe the construction can be fixed (but made more ugly) by starting with a set of different particles, rather than a set of identical fermions.
I like the example of Pi, introduced to this discussion by thinkdeeplistengood. Some people might claim that Pi is an artificial mathematical construct with no physical reality. I would say it appears first in geometry, and that this geometry is a feature of all of the physical theories we have found describe our physical universe (eg General relativity and Quantum mechanics find Pi in their equations). It would seem strange to consider these theories to be unphysical when they are the very best ways we know to predict the behaviour of things in our Universe. Is it sensible to reject the best physical theories we have as being unphysical, while calling more primitive concepts physical? Ideas like there being an infinite number of different points in a region of space time is as fundamental a part of the main physical theories as Pi is. Try doing physics starting with the idea that there is a finite number of points in space-time ...