Assorted links

Comments

6. This is a good comment on Salmon's blog:

Let’s see if he can “supervise† the inventors of Plutonomy
as Global Equity Strategy!!! In his new movie, Michael Moore mentions the Citigroup document of 2005 on plutonomy
Here:
http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/files/6674 234-citigroup-oct-16-2005-plutonomy-repo rt-part-1.pdf

So, back to me, Citi was wrong about everything EXCEPT their assertion that we have 'plutonomy?' Likely?

So, to Mr. Moore, a single memo about an economic forecast is damning, but I wonder what he says about the e-mails concerning the global warming research conspiracy.

I like the solitary, inaccessible French Laundry in the middle.

You're grossly unfair on Buiter. He was full of praise for citi in October last year (http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/10/arbitrage-at-last/) for having discovered a new paradigm.

There is a nice discussion of, in effect, the chances of a monkey typing Shakespeare in George Gamow's "One, Two, Three...Infinity". (recommended) It's on p.13 in the edition I have. Here is the calculation for one LINE of Shakespeare to be printed at random:

There are 26 letter, 10 numerals, and 14 common signs. 50 symbols total. The average printed line has 65 places. The odds of printing a particular 65 character line are then 10 raised to the power of 110. Then, here is the money quote:

"To feel the immensity of that number assume that each atom in the universe represents a separate printing press, so that we have 3x(10 to the 74) machines working simultaneously. Assume further that all these machines have been working continuously since the creation of the universe...3 billion years or 10 to the 17 seconds, printing at the rate of atomic vibrations, that is, 10 to the 15 lines per second. By now they would have printed about 3X(10 to the 106) lines - which is only about one thirtieth of 1 percent of the total number required [to print every possible line]."

The book is a bit dated, but I think the calculation is good enough to get the point across. A lot turns on exactly how strictly we are using the word impossible, but I think it would be correct to say that it is impossible for a monkey to type Hamlet by sitting at a typewriter hitting keys at random.

I thought the point of the infinite monkeys hypothesis was to explore the nature of infinity. It's not that it's UNLIKELY that a monkey would type Shakespeare...it's that a monkey would by definition type it because that's how the concept of infinity works. The monkey would also type every other written thing giving infinite typing time.

Didn't Montgomery Burns try this? A room full of monkeys to recreate the greatest book ever written?

If I recall correctly, he picked up a page and started reading:
"It was the best of times, it was the blorst of times..."
"Blorst of times?! Stupid Monkey!"

More analytically, John4's calculated number of 10^110 (which I assume is 50^65 but my calculator can't handle that) must now be divided by the total number of lines in Shakespeare. Or if we are generous, the total number of 65 character sequences, which is about equal to the total number of letters.

This doesn't really help though.

I hated the "flow chart".
Decision points should be diamonds.
The desire/intent to keep inside a rectangle of a particular size destroys the usability.

Isn't the answer to the question of whether a bunch of monkeys would ultimately write the works of Shakespeare "One of them already did" ?

Comments for this post are closed