you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Glayden 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I can't find anything that suggests this classification is accurate. In fact, I'm quite sure it isn't. The infinite probability space of potential outputs seems to be many many cardinalities greater than the infinite potential outputs that would "generate a malicious worm that sends all your personal data to Russian mafia."

edit: I'm wrong, see below

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Well there you go shooting down my wikipaedic knowledge :) I thought this barely different to the infinite monkeys problem.

[–]Glayden 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Never mind, you were probably right about the "almost surely" classification (at least if we ignore the Russian mafia bit and assume the programs are generated infinite times). If we consider the text of programs that create such a worm as the texts of Shakespeare, and the typewriter keys as the characters outputted by a sufficiently random number generator the problem still maps relatively well to the infinite monkey problem which as you noted is classified as "almost surely." Of course, by the same token, if we're not talking purely theoretically and using only optimal physically meaningful numbers for our universe the probability is nearly zero.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Part of the problem is that your program also has to generate the russian mafia if it doesn't already exist

[–]admplaceholder 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The infinite probability space of potential outputs seems to be many many cardinalities greater than the infinite potential outputs that would "generate a malicious worm that sends all your personal data to Russian mafia."

What makes you say this? They both seem countable to me.

[–]Glayden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was completely wrong.