How Long Does Other DAWs Take To Save 20,000 Midi Items?

[fmr]

"If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small."

Or to put it in plain simple English, it is impossible.

Whereas,the chance of William Shakespeare (if he were alive and so desired) writing a new play within a time span of a few months is probably close to 100%.

^^^THIS^^^

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

So, if the infinite is unachievable (which, but its own definition it must be), a monkey that lasts infinitely is a mere math hipothesis, a function that "tends" to infinite, but never really gets there, so, the achievable "complete Shakespeare works" is a result that becomes closer and closer, but is never really reached.

[IncarnateX]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Problem is not whether it is possible to hit a classic like Greensleeves by randomization alone, there is proof of this possibility say the wise mathematicians, however it is more the notion of "infinite", which is rather abstract within a human's lifetime and thus whether there would be an algorithm to speed up the proces. Thus, in the proof the monkey has to be immortal.

I have not read the whole article,but what you have said does not remotely resemble the actual conclusion which is further down the page........

"If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small."

Or to put it in plain simple English, it is impossible.

Whereas,the chance of William Shakespeare (if he were alive and so desired) writing a new play within a time span of a few months is probably close to 100%.

nah - hinges on the idea of infinite - which does indeed get pretty strange eg some infiinite series are bigger than others (for some versions of bigger)

Nope, you do not get the proof. It is exactly that unfathomable small is not the same as impossible:

Suppose the typewriter has 50 keys, and the word to be typed is banana. If the keys are pressed randomly and independently, it means that each key has an equal chance of being pressed. Then, the chance that the first letter typed is 'b' is 1/50, and the chance that the second letter typed is a is also 1/50, and so on. Therefore, the chance of the first six letters spelling banana is
(1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) = (1/50)6 = 1/15 625 000 000 ,
less than one in 15 billion, but not zero, hence a possible outcome.

To mathematicians even the smallest provable amount of likelyhood does not equal impossible. Impossible simply means mathematically impossible. Well, as said I am not really here to make conclusions, but applied to a human's lifetime, the answer seems obvious. Though, these "hitmaker" algorithms implied in the other links obviously are made to increase likelihood by sets of rules derived from already established hits. if they can predict a hit, then you can in principle make us of them to create one. Not my area, so I will not even remotely reject it due to bad feelings in my stomach.

[IncarnateX]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

So, if the infinite is unachievable (which, but its own definition it must be), a monkey that lasts infinitely is a mere math hipothesis, a function that "tends" to infinite, but never really gets there, so, the achievable "complete Shakespeare works" is a result that becomes closer and closer, but is never really reached.

I am afraid this would be rubbish to a mathematician. Infinite in this proof means that given an unlimited amount of time it "could" happen in terms of likelyhood but not that it ever "will" happen. And anything less than a mathematical counter proof will not convince a mathematician. What you say above is unfathomably far from that in so far that you do not get the premise of the term infinite in the proof.

[fmr]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

So, if the infinite is unachievable (which, but its own definition it must be), a monkey that lasts infinitely is a mere math hipothesis, a function that "tends" to infinite, but never really gets there, so, the achievable "complete Shakespeare works" is a result that becomes closer and closer, but is never really reached.

I am afraid this would be rubbish to a mathematician. Infinite in this proof means that given an unlimited amount of time it "could" happen in terms of likelyhood but not that it ever "will" happen. And anything less than a mathematical counter proof will not convince a mathematician. What you say above is unfathomably far from that in so far that you do not get the premise of the term infinite in the proof.

No, what I said is pure math. Read about it here: http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/u ... 2009-1.pdf

Define me what's the meaning of your premise: "... given an unlimited amount of time". What is that? What is "an unlimited amount of time"? It's nothing more than infinity. And infinity in unreachable, by its own definition. Prove me (mathematically) that I am wrong. I didn't say it's unachievable (given the premise). I said that the premise is a function that "tends to infinite", and those functions always lead to the same - we get closer and closer, but we never reach the limit.

OTOH, since even the universe is finite (according tp some conclusions) then yeah, we can say that the result may be unreachable in the amount of time we have (until the unverse ends up).

[Delta Sign]

The whole infinite monkey thing is just a thought experiment.

Yes, in theory they would write a Shakespeare piece eventually, but in practice they would not (ignoring the fact that the whole setup is impossible to begin with).

You can try it right now: Let your computer generate random lines of text for the next 10 years. Spoiler alert: You won't get much more than 2 or 3 words that make any kind of sense in a row.

[woggle]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

So, if the infinite is unachievable (which, but its own definition it must be), a monkey that lasts infinitely is a mere math hipothesis, a function that "tends" to infinite, but never really gets there, so, the achievable "complete Shakespeare works" is a result that becomes closer and closer, but is never really reached.

I am afraid this would be rubbish to a mathematician. Infinite in this proof means that given an unlimited amount of time it "could" happen in terms of likelyhood but not that it ever "will" happen. And anything less than a mathematical counter proof will not convince a mathematician. What you say above is unfathomably far from that in so far that you do not get the premise of the term infinite in the proof.

No, what I said is pure math. Read about it here: http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/u ... 2009-1.pdf

Define me what's the meaning of your premise: "... given an unlimited amount of time". What is that? What is "an unlimited amount of time"? It's nothing more than infinity. And infinity in unreachable, by its own definition. Prove me (mathematically) that I am wrong.

But the problem does not require reaching something called infinity (a nonsensical proposition in itself as infinity is not a destination) but rather producing some string of characters - which is a completely different problem. It is like saying that an infinite string will always contain within it any string of any length (which is not actually true). Maybe the monkeys problem is not formally provable because the infinite series they produce is countably infinite and therefore does not contain all possible strings (from Cantor). Perhaps Shakespeare's works are contained within one of the missing strings from the countably infinite strings

[fmr]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

So, if the infinite is unachievable (which, but its own definition it must be), a monkey that lasts infinitely is a mere math hipothesis, a function that "tends" to infinite, but never really gets there, so, the achievable "complete Shakespeare works" is a result that becomes closer and closer, but is never really reached.

I am afraid this would be rubbish to a mathematician. Infinite in this proof means that given an unlimited amount of time it "could" happen in terms of likelyhood but not that it ever "will" happen. And anything less than a mathematical counter proof will not convince a mathematician. What you say above is unfathomably far from that in so far that you do not get the premise of the term infinite in the proof.

No, what I said is pure math. Read about it here: http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/u ... 2009-1.pdf

Define me what's the meaning of your premise: "... given an unlimited amount of time". What is that? What is "an unlimited amount of time"? It's nothing more than infinity. And infinity in unreachable, by its own definition. Prove me (mathematically) that I am wrong.

But the problem does not require reaching something called infinity (a nonsensical proposition in itself as infinity is not a destination) but rather producing some string of characters - which is a completely different problem

The problem requires you to get there, right? And in a limited horizon (otherwise, how do you prove you CAN get there). He said "if we have an unlimited amount of time". That's the premise. But "an unlimited amount of time" IS the infinite. So, WHEN do we get there exactly? When do we get "some string of characters" that makes sense? In "an unlimited amount of time". This is a function that tends to infinite, IMO.

[IncarnateX]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

So, if the infinite is unachievable (which, but its own definition it must be), a monkey that lasts infinitely is a mere math hipothesis, a function that "tends" to infinite, but never really gets there, so, the achievable "complete Shakespeare works" is a result that becomes closer and closer, but is never really reached.

I am afraid this would be rubbish to a mathematician. Infinite in this proof means that given an unlimited amount of time it "could" happen in terms of likelyhood but not that it ever "will" happen. And anything less than a mathematical counter proof will not convince a mathematician. What you say above is unfathomably far from that in so far that you do not get the premise of the term infinite in the proof.

No, what I said is pure math. Read about it here: http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/resources/u ... 2009-1.pdf

Define me what's the meaning of your premise: "... given an unlimited amount of time". What is that? What is "an unlimited amount of time"? It's nothing more than infinity. And infinity in unreachable, by its own definition. Prove me (mathematically) that I am wrong. I didn't say it's unachievable (given the premise). I said that the premise is a function that "tends to infinite", and those functions always lead to the same - we get closer and closer, but we never reach the limit.

it is still rubbish and does not apply to the proof in which unlimited means that, e.g. the universe will not die and neither the monkey. And if it was a valid objection to the proof I am certain that one of the world's millions of math researchers would have taken time to add it to the article. But why worry? These days we all know that science is but fake news and left wing propaganda so if your toe says so, it says so.

[woggle]

Give me the formula.

see my edit

[fmr]

Give me the formula.

see my edit

"Maybe the monkeys problem is not formally provable because the infinite series they produce is countably infinite and therefore does not contain all possible strings (from Cantor). Perhaps Shakespeare's works are one of the missing strings from the countably infinite strings "

[BertKoor]

You can try it right now: Let your computer generate random lines of text for the next 10 years. Spoiler alert: You won't get much more than 2 or 3 words that make any kind of sense in a row.

I've done this for a name generator.

In our company we'd like to use production data of customers to test with, but the data needs to be "depersonalised" first. That is, replace the name (and other attributes) with random data. What itched me was that just random sequences of letters produced very ugly names, hard to remember and too fake.

So I did an analysis on 500.000 real Dutch names. How many start with an A, or B, just count all the first letters. And adjust the probability of that letter being chosen by my random function accordingly. Then the big step forward to produce real-looking names was to calculate the probability of a letter being chosen based on the two letters preceding it. For instance with Dutch names, if you already have SC then the chance of an H being the next letter is nearly 100%.

With a simple statistical analysis of combinations of letters, I was able to produce random names that were easy to pronounce and memorise. The bad news is that although I thought I invented the approach, it was Andrey Markov that described it first.

Apply this to rhythms & melodies, simple... not?

[fmr]

Apply this to rhythms & melodies, simple... not?

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... vkhcVILCCk

[dellboy]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

Within a finite material universe where all matter tends towards dissolution, infinity is of a given unit of time. In other words, time will come to an end before infinity is ever achieved.

[fmr]

Anyway, if I remember well, from my math studies, isn't the infinite unachievable, and all the functions that tend to infinite never really reach the limit (they "tend" to infinite, but they do not "reach" infinite)?

Within a finite material universe where all matter tends towards dissolution, infinity is of a given unit of time. In other words, time will come to an end before infinity is ever achieved.

FTFY

[Delta Sign]

You can try it right now: Let your computer generate random lines of text for the next 10 years. Spoiler alert: You won't get much more than 2 or 3 words that make any kind of sense in a row.

I've done this for a name generator.

In our company we'd like to use production data of customers to test with, but the data needs to be "depersonalised" first. That is, replace the name (and other attributes) with random data. What itched me was that just random sequences of letters produced very ugly names, hard to remember and too fake.

So I did an analysis on 500.000 real Dutch names. How many start with an A, or B, just count all the first letters. And adjust the probability of that letter being chosen by my random function accordingly. Then the big step forward to produce real-looking names was to calculate the probability of a letter being chosen based on the two letters preceding it. For instance with Dutch names, if you already have SC then the chance of an H being the next letter is nearly 100%.

With a simple statistical analysis of combinations of letters, I was able to produce random names that were easy to pronounce and memorise. The bad news is that although I thought I invented the approach, it was Andrey Markov that described it first.

Apply this to rhythms & melodies, simple... not?

Yeah! That's why I suggested Markov chains earlier in this thread

They don't really work all that well on drums, though, because there are many different styles of drumming. Even just very different patterns would probably lead to conflicting results. It would be like not limiting your name generator to dutch, for example. The results would be a lot more random.

However, Markov chains are great if you want to imitate Bach, for example. His music followed very strict rules (for the most part) which are easier to pick up.