<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Rodeo &#187; Throwing a monkey-wrench in the works&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.the-rodeo.com/blog/category/awesome/throwing-a-monkey-wrench-in-the-works/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.the-rodeo.com/blog</link>
	<description>Because illogic is a lifestyle choice.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 03:08:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>To Ook, Or Not To Ook?</title>
		<link>http://www.the-rodeo.com/blog/2009/01/to-ook-or-not-to-ook/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-rodeo.com/blog/2009/01/to-ook-or-not-to-ook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>RodeoClown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Throwing a monkey-wrench in the works...]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-rodeo.com/blog/?p=384</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#8217;t know who it was that first talked about the possibility of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters producing Hamlet entirely by chance, but it is an argument that I have often heard. &#8220;Sure it&#8217;s unlikely,&#8221; I&#8217;m told, &#8220;but given enough time and enough monkeys, it would happen.&#8221; This argument is actually quite sound &#8212; given enough [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I don&#8217;t know who it was that first talked about the possibility of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters producing <cite>Hamlet</cite> entirely by chance, but it is an argument that I have often heard. &#8220;Sure it&#8217;s unlikely,&#8221; I&#8217;m told, &#8220;but given enough time and enough monkeys, it would happen.&#8221;</p>
<p>This argument is actually quite sound &#8212; given enough time and enough monkeys, one <em>could</em> eventually produce &#8220;Hamlet&#8221; by accident. The fact that it is intuitively sound is the argument&#8217;s greatest problem, because it means that people generally don&#8217;t bother checking the exact figures. This is a shame, because it is one of those rare areas of speculation where the exact figures can be calculated.</p>
<p style="text-align: right; "><em><strong><a title="Ook..." href="http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys">The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare</a></strong><strong>,<br />
</strong></em> by <a href="http://www.nutters.org/user/famous"><em>The Famous Brett Watson</em></a></p></blockquote>
<p>A fascinating explanation of why you might get the word &#8220;Ook&#8221; from an thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters, but getting &#8220;To be or not to be, that is the question&#8221;, much less the entirety of Hamlet, just ain&#8217;t going to happen.</p>
<p>Go read it, it makes the mathematics of unimaginably large numbers fun.</p>
<p>RodeoClown: <em>is aware of the study with orangutans and computers.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-rodeo.com/blog/2009/01/to-ook-or-not-to-ook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

