Artificial Intelligence 2020 - is there progress? - page 8
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Ask him.) When the fervour dies down, read it again, maybe something will come back to you.)
I'm going to sit in a lotus and then go to sleep.
If he preaches here, I'll be sure to ask. There's nothing but mental excrement from the followers.
It may be uncomfortable to fart in a lotus before going to sleep. But to each his own. :)
One example of big numbers from the infinite monkey theorem.
"It has been calculated that even if the entire observable part of the universe were filled with monkeys typing throughout its existence, the probability of them typing a single copy of a book is nevertheless only a value of 1/10 to the power of 183,800".
If he preaches here, I'll be sure to ask. There is nothing but mental excrement from the followers.
It must be uncomfortable to fart in a lotus before going to bed. But to each his own. :)
Auknetsya. I mean) I corrected a mistake there.
To each his own, you're right.
One example of big numbers from the infinite monkey theorem.
"It has been calculated that even if the entire observable part of the universe were filled with typing monkeys for as long as it exists, the probability of them typing a single copy of a book is nevertheless only 1/10 to the power of 183,800".
big numbers are a lot of fun.
there's the"end of the world theorem". Emphasis added because it's proven :-)
One example of big numbers from the infinite monkey theorem.
"It has been calculated that even if the entire observable part of the universe were filled with monkeys typing throughout its existence, the probability of them typing a single copy of a book is nevertheless only a value of 1/10183,800."
Mate, that's nothing. It's a nice turn of phrase, but the point is that the author sees monkeys as incapable of typing. I've seen a monkey on a smartphone in a video, and it's more skillful than most people. Even I can't do that with my fingers.
There's too much incorrect data in this theorem to begin with. And monkeys are purely a variable, limited by the author's views; and the universe too is surely nothing more than an image that the author's limited mind has absorbed; and so is the book and everything else.
If the author had not looked from the linearly limited images of his own self-reflection, but from the surrounding reality in all its formats and manifestations (or at least from a certain defined set of processes and phenomena of the surrounding reality), he would not have written such things.
In other words, such calculations cannot be taken minimally seriously at all.
Mate, that's nothing. It's a nice turn of phrase, but the point is that the author views monkeys as being incapable of typing. I've seen a monkey on a smartphone in a video, and it's more sophisticated than most people. Even I can't do that with my fingers.
There's too much incorrect data in this theorem to begin with. And monkeys are purely a variable, limited by the author's views; and the universe too is surely nothing more than an image that the author's limited mind has absorbed; and so is the book and everything else.
If the author had not looked from the linearly limited images of his own self-reflection, but from the surrounding reality in all its formats and manifestations (or at least from a certain set of processes and phenomena of the surrounding reality), he would not have written such things.
In other words, such calculations cannot be taken minimally seriously at all.
In such a case the potential for success would both increase and decrease. For example they would get bored with printing in a short period of time, or everyone would press the buttons one after another "ytzuken" - which would finally lead to failure).
And one has to realise that in this theorem these monkeys would have printed all the existing books - with shorter contents (and far from in one copy)
big numbers are a lot of fun.
There's the"end of the world theorem". Emphasis added, because it's proven :-)
Yes? I have to read it. Where is it written?
These scientists had fun, there is a list of references at the bottom. The meaning for us in the scale of numbers, that a simple enumeration is impossible in any reasonable time to solve a complex problem in our lives. That is, you can't program by describing sequences. It is necessary to connect either known mechanisms, which nature has seen, or to make up your own for the same numbers of years.
10^10^123 is the time it takes to solve everything. I once estimated how many thousands of years it will take for a ray of light to reach the end of a given number if it is written in the usual form (decimal form without powers)
10^10^123 is the time it takes to solve everything. I once estimated how many thousands of years it will take for a ray of light to reach the end of a given number, if it is written in normal (decimal form without powers)
The Universehas a lifespan of ~13 billion years. Will it make it?