mcc@mcc@mastodon.social

It's well known that an infinite number of monkeys will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. However my thesis is that this formulation is naive, and we can in fact establish a far lower bound. Proof: William Shakespeare, a monkey, produced the works of Shakespeare. Therefore the number of monkeys needed to produce the work of Shakespeare is no greater than the number of primates who lived between Altiatlasius koulchii (57 million years ago) and 1610 CE. Roughly how many monkeys is that?

Sproid 🕸 :spider_bw:@Sproid@bohio.icu

Replying to @⁨thattommyhall@functional.cafe⁩

@thattommyhall@functional.cafe @mcc@mastodon.social Monkey is a generic term referring to the lesser apes and the great apes, which the scientific classification is Simiiformes.
This is a great short blog read about it.
But if anyone prefer an amusing video about the topic Clint's Reptiles video is a must.

Primate nested hierarchyZygomaApes are monkeys – deal with itAre apes monkeys? Martin Robbins wrote a fun piece in The Lay Scientist the other day on the incorrect use of the term monkeys to describe apes (triggered by an article by Graham Smith for the Dail…