The question is...

[Mark Sawyer]

If a million monkeys with a million typewriters typing for million years could reproduce the entire works of Shakesphere...

Could a million monkeys with a million Deardorffs photographing for a million years reproduce the entire works of Ansel Adams?

[Ron Marshall]

Could at least one of the 10^6 monkeys manage to load a filmholder without fogging the film in 10^6 years?

[John Kasaian]

If a million monkeys with a million typewriters typing for million years could reproduce the entire works of Shakesphere...

Could a million monkeys with a million Deardorffs photographing for a million years reproduce the entire works of Ansel Adams?

Would the monkeys be using the zone system?:D

IIRC, monkeys are not allowed to roam loose in Yosemite!

[Mark Sawyer]

Actually, it's a trick question...

According to the Theory of Evolution, it's already happened! :)

[Vaughn]

Ahhhh...you are making monkeys out of us....

Vaughn

[Walter Calahan]

No, a million monkeys have better things to do.

[Patrick Dixon]

I suspect you will find that Adams was 99.something % monkey.

[GPS]

If a million monkeys with a million typewriters typing for million years could reproduce the entire works of Shakesphere...

Could a million monkeys with a million Deardorffs photographing for a million years reproduce the entire works of Ansel Adams?

Mark, in case you didn't notice that - there is a huge difference between a monkey typing and a man, descended after million years of unknown evolution from the monkey, doing the same. As there is a huge difference between a monkey taking photographs and a man, descended after million years of unknown evolution from the monkey, doing the same.
Just to alleviate your anguish... :)

[gevalia]

I recall a book called Moskow 2000 (I think) where they put hundreds on monkeys in a room with typewriters. Back when I was reading spy novels.

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, in case you didn't notice that - there is a huge difference between a monkey typing and a man, descended after million years of unknown evolution from the monkey, doing the same. As there is a huge difference between a monkey taking photographs and a man, descended after million years of unknown evolution from the monkey, doing the same.
Just to alleviate your anguish... :)

Yes, a huge difference... we have internet forums to argue about it! :D

[Preston]

I must be descended from monkeys because I really like 'monkeying' around with LF. In fact, I've really gone 'ape' over it!

-P

[Nathan Potter]

Not possible in TX. according to the Texas Education Agency.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Dan Fromm]

If a million monkeys with a million typewriters typing for million years could reproduce the entire works of Shakesphere...

Could a million monkeys with a million Deardorffs photographing for a million years reproduce the entire works of Ansel Adams?

If we think in terms of random strings of characters, including spaces and punctuation, and arrays of random pixels, I think we'll see that the probability that a randomly generated long text string will match all of Shakespeare's works is greater than the probability that a randomly generate array of pixels will match a single 8x10 print. This because the print has more pixels than Shakespeare's works have characters. All of AA's prints have more pixels still.

[bvstaples]

If the million monkeys trying to photograph are the same million monkeys trying to write Shakesperian, then I don't think you will get either Shakespearian words or Adams-like images, because most of those monkeys will be to busy twittering or blogging or otherwise clogging up the internet with the dribble that shows up on the Internet these day.

Just one monkey's opinion...

[BarryS]

I'm picturing a lot of broken, feces-smeared Deardorffs, and monkeys gorged on the sweet bellows.

[Jim Galli]

Mark, evolution theory, and it is a theory folks, it is not science no matter what the monkeys tell you, came to my mind immediately as soon as I read your original premise. You of course beat me to your own punch line.

the wicked fool has said in his heart "there is no God". Ps. 14:1

[Marko]

Mark, evolution theory, and it is a theory folks, it is not science no matter what the monkeys tell you

Sounds like you mean "hypothesis" and "apes" when you say "theory" and "monkeys"...

I don't know about the monkeys, but the scientists all seem to think theories ARE science.

[Mark Sawyer]

Now gentlemen, let's not argue religion and the origins of humanity when there are far deeper, more important subjects to fathom... like whether a Cooke Portric has nicer bokeh than a Universal Heliar. (There, that'll get the sparks flying! :D )

[Marko]

Religion? Who mentioned religion? Religion has nothing to do with origin of species or monkeys. Or even typewriters. This was all about science... :D

[Alan Davenport]

Could at least one of the 10^6 monkeys manage to load a filmholder without fogging the film in 10^6 years?

Possibly. However, I know humans who would have trouble loading film correctly in that much time, so it's certainly possible that the monkeys would fail before they ever got started...

[Steve_Renwick]

If a million monkeys with a million typewriters typing for million years could reproduce the entire works of Shakesphere...

Somebody already tried that experiment. The result is the Internet.

[Richard M. Coda]

Wait, let me get this straight. I can hire a monkey to do all the hard work? And all I have to do is feed him bananas? Sh!t! I knew I was doing something wrong.

[Maris Rusis]

The Shakespeare or Ansel Adams scenarios are so improbable that the age of the universe (best current estimate 13.7 billion years) is grossly insufficient for a reasonable chance of either instance coming about.

On the other hand if the universe is infinite in time then both scenarios are certain to have happened; and an infinite number of times too.

[Steve M Hostetter]

The great apes still look like great apes and people still look like people after 3 million or so years. No missing link or smoking gun to explain otherwise

[Marko]

The great apes still look like great apes and people still look like people after 3 million or so years. No missing link or smoking gun to explain otherwise

Well, if you look around you, you may notice that there are certain people with a pronounced tendency to behave like apes. Maybe Darwin had it all backwards, maybe the apes have descended from humans... :D

[Steve M Hostetter]

could be a smoking gun a :D

[Toyon]

Mark, evolution theory, and it is a theory folks, it is not science no matter what the monkeys tell you, came to my mind immediately as soon as I read your original premise. You of course beat me to your own punch line.

the wicked fool has said in his heart "there is no God". Ps. 14:1

Theory is integral to science. Scientists are not categorical - it leaves room for further development of knowledge based on new or reinterpreted evidence.

Of course, in Nevada things may be different. There, probability, statistics and reason are not considered "science" but impediments to the enjoyment of abundant water, gambling and the faith that "what happens..... never happened."

[bvstaples]

I don't know about the monkeys, but the scientists all seem to think theories ARE science.

This scientific-type person knows that theories are not science. And most scientists I know (and I know a lot of them), know that science and theories are not one in the same. Science is merely a process to either prove or disprove theories. Theories, on the other hand, are merely conjecture, unproven until scientific methodology is applied. At the very least theories are wild guesses and go all the way to whacked-out suppositions. But then this monkey digresses...

[Toyon]

This scientific-type person knows that theories are not science. And most scientists I know (and I know a lot of them), know that science and theories are not one in the same. Science is merely a process to either prove or disprove theories. Theories, on the other hand, are merely conjecture, unproven until scientific methodology is applied. At the very least theories are wild guesses and go all the way to whacked-out suppositions. But then this monkey digresses...



You are essentially wrong. The colloquial and incorrect use of the term "theory" has come to mean what scientists call hypothesis - "a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations". Testing of a hypothesis by scientists is what leads to theory. A "theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena."

American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the proper use of the term theory follows:

THEORY

In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)

[Marko]

This scientific-type person knows that theories are not science. And most scientists I know (and I know a lot of them), know that science and theories are not one in the same. Science is merely a process to either prove or disprove theories. Theories, on the other hand, are merely conjecture, unproven until scientific methodology is applied. At the very least theories are wild guesses and go all the way to whacked-out suppositions. But then this monkey digresses...



Well, this ape has a science degree himself and knows that there are three general levels of systematic view of facts in science: hypotheses, theories and laws.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary explains it in the following manner:



Hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>.

Theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>.

Law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.


Various sources may apply different wording, but all three have very well defined roles in (real) science.

[sun of sand]

fit

[Struan Gray]

"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection" Henri Poincaré

quoted in Bertrand Russell's introduction to "Science and Method". The whole introduction is worth a read: it's available in the limited preview at Google Books:

http://books.google.se/books?id=QPXa2UgysLQC&dq=science+and+method+poincare


As for the original question: Peano and Cantor proved that there are as many points in a plane as on a line, so randomly generating photographs is mathematically equivalent to randomly generating sonnets. The engineer in me would bung in a couple more dozen monkeys to allow for the different boundary conditions. That, and an infinite supply of buns.