Doublelift Stunlocks Sneaky for 24 Minutes Ft Meteos |

Stunlocking ‪@SneakyLoL‬ during our costreams
► / doublelift
► Main channel: bit.ly/Doublelift_YT
► SECOND CHANNEL: / @moredoublelift
► SHORTS CHANNEL: / @doubleliftshorts8758
►Edited/managed by kasino
/ kasinozz
► All Social Links
MAIN CHANNEL - / doublelift
SECOND CHANNEL - / @moredoublelift
TWITTER - / doublelift1
TWITCH - / doublelift
TIKTOK - / 1doublelift
INSTAGRAM - / yiliangpeng
DISCORD - / discord
FACEBOOK - / doubleliftofficial
#Doublelift #LeagueOfLegends #League
►CREDIT IF USING STREAM VODS (one week old only)

[@dejakiller69]

The funniest thing about this whole video is that while most of the time when DL is not laughing his ass off, he's just dying from how much he's holding back his laughter while meteos and sneaky are unironically, dead serious discussing the manner

[@methylphenidate1270]

No no no meteos was one HUNDRED percent on DLs side but he loves to troll

[@SDREHXC]

@@methylphenidate1270that’s the only thing I remember about the dude back in the day. He’d respond to/with the trolliest shit in the most deadpan serious voice.

[@XionTheSylveon]

I got to the first minute and realized what this was and immediately had to go. I can't relive this again.

[@Da_Son]

Same lol

[@zealous404]

jokes on you I love to rot my brain

[@1337awesomeness]

Omfg me too dude.

[@cupidok2768]

where is the stunlock. so long......

[@1337awesomeness]

@@cupidok2768 the stun lock is sneaky going on for 20 mins about the impossibility of a monkey smashing a type writer regardless of the concept of "infinite time and life to figure it out".

[@daviidallan]

Sneaky not understanding infinity and getting stun locked is the most Sneaky thing ever.

[@jinsujoung2496]

he knows infinity, but its a monkey

[@LumieX]

He understands infinity, you're just not getting what he's saying. He's saying that even if the monkey had infinite time it still wouldn't be possible and he's correct. In fact, the odds that a monkey randomly hitting keys on a typewriter even typing a single paragraph of any given work of Shakespear is effectively zero, let alone the entire complete works. It's just an extremely dumb theory.

[@Sgt.chickens]

To some degree he is right though. The analogy is simple. Using anything else as a metric makes more sense to express infinity. In reality the monkey would probaboy not use the type writer and would indeed not be pressing random keys. Also monkeys dont live for infinity. Its just a pointless analogy that doesnt really help you underatand infinity better, which is the purpose.

[@alucard4974]

@@Sgt.chickens "pointless analogy", it's not like something is poinless or stupid just because u can't understand that analogy explains that everything that CAN happen (= is possible, >0%) WILL happen if time is equal to infinity

[@Sgt.chickens]

@@alucard4974 but you dont need an analpgy for that. Thats what im saying. Indo understand tye analogy hut it serves no purpose for actually explaining infinity. Especially because we know time is likely not infinite.

[@calvin3379]

The best part is Meteos discussing the Dunning Krueger Effect just before the stunlock

[@yhlee1205]

Sneaky is the only person that successfully infuriated and made me laugh at the same time.

[@cujoson1150]

@@naofumi9980 Yeah but that was a really short excerpt. You just need more time to be able to get to Shakespeare

[@naofumi9980]

@@cujoson1150 It is not possible. kepeesh.

[@cujoson1150]

@@naofumi9980 it is, you just have to go long enough

[@apexrays139]

You don’t understand infinity lmao

[@MCB400100]

@@apexrays139 You can hang around and think you understand infinity. No one does. Time is made up by human kind. Its not even a real thing. Infinity (of time) is an uncomprehensible term of something we made up ourselves. Thats probably / most certainly why its so confusing.

[@lmao4982]

meteos was really sharp in the monty hall conversation, he identified exactly where the tricky part was

[@Awesomeficationify]

Idk what meteos was trying to say, but the logic goes like: 1. (X) X X 2. (G) X X

[@lmao4982]

@@Awesomeficationify yes but importantly he identified that information is gained due to the host only ever revealing goats and not cars, which is the crux of the matter.

[@sheldonforeman6941]

@@lmao4982 yea he was actually super quick to realize that which was cool

[@NateO123]

Meanwhile Sneaky remains fully convinced that its stupid and can't get away from the fact that the odds were set from the start and that the door that's revealed is not random as opposed to his choice lol. I just find it super funny that when doublelift explained it as 100 doors and the the host removes 98 doors that it didn't click for Sneaky. Even when double finally gets it and explain it properly with that analogy Sneaky just still can't rap his head around it. The host isn't showing you a door randomly Sneaky, he knows where the car is. You made a statistical choice from the start and those are the working odds, the host revealing wrong answers to you doesn't change the odds of the choice you made from the beginning. "You have to disregard the math here." Sigh. Double even explained Dunning Kreuger in this exact stream and the kid doesn't get it and can't get it.

[@user-ch3eu9ho2n]

how dumb are you that youre flaming sneaky while agreeing with him@@NateO123

[@RadialSeeker113]

"Uzi was just a really lucky monkey" -doublelift This makes me crack up so hard

[@pennyplaysgames919]

So this is what happens when you stop going to school to play video games for a living... I love these guys

[@GhostBeatboxFugu]

I'm so glad this got a separate video. One of the funniest conversations I've listened to.

[@Syveril]

Oh my God, Sneaky being wrong but also stubborn as if to immediately illustrate Dunning-Kruger for 20 minutes solid. But also Meteos really quick on the pickup; props to him.

[@Koryogden]

\[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@commonsensei9772]

This was the funniest discussion that ever came from this trio. I remember watching this live lol.

[@HngCactus]

THE INFINITE MONKEY THEOREM. One of the best moments of the tricast for sure hahaha.

[@SiemenCaveye]

To this day, I still don't understand how Sneaky didn't see the logic behind all this. Favourite Co-stream moment ever.

[@Koryogden]

\[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@broc1617]

The ultimate clip has arrived

[@VortexS4]

I really love to see Peter and Sneaky passing a good time just talking radom bullshit.

[@__august__]

14:30 CLEANSED THE PROBABILITY OMAGALUL

[@solidwolf666]

I like how we go from double lift saying how the least knowledgeable people are the most sure of themselves to sneaky saying the infinite monkey theorem is impossible lol oh the irony :)

[@full-timepog6844]

Everyone wants to be my eye nemy

[@ashrafulalam3662]

To be honest, sneaky is actually right. The odds are so small for a monkey to gingerly and precisely press all the keys to make even a legible sentence without training is so small that we will probably not see it happen even once before the universe is already dead and the monkeys long extinct.

[@WordsWorthLiving]

@@ashrafulalam3662 yes, but thats not the point. in theory it's INFINITE amount of time.. that's why u can't say it wont happen, cuz u can't know. you dont need to take things like lifespan of a monkey into account.

[@apexrays139]

You’re trying to changing the problem so that it’s no longer infinite that doesn’t matter it’s theoretical, you don’t understand infinity “ any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given enough time”

[@GeekProdigyGuy]

​@@ashrafulalam3662 literally not the point.

[@Shunpon77]

Saving this stream for any time I am feeling down on myself!

[@Tartersauce101]

Sneaky makes a good point about monkeys vs random number generators

[@rishithapremachandra9911]

DL losing it after explaining the monte hall problem always cracks me up XD

[@trmb783]

I enjoy this every time I see it! Sneaky brain too.. big?

[@KimiRaikkonen123]

Meteos dying in the call always gets me

[@TheHesjes]

I can't believe I talked about this the other day and it gets uploaded again and I watch the whole thing and i enjoyed it again.

[@willyoung859]

Meteos was just high enough for this convo

[@MartinZhouProfile]

meteos chiming in just to add chaos

[@paytont3034]

The amount of times I've seen DL bring up these problems and theories

[@cynicalmanatee]

This is lowering my braincells by the minute.

[@GrubbyP4ws]

This video made my day

[@YoItsTheTopo]

Sneaky and Doublelift have the most Worlds appearances for a reason ;)

[@astraluniverse5928]

this is some of the best content you three ever made together. fucking priceless

[@brandonforster3718]

killer part of this is when sneaky asks "just the words or actually in order" like that makes any difference

[@jeremymercer5655]

The Monty Hall problem The two keys are that he always shows a goat, and he never shows what is behind the door you choose. Because of these two rules, the door he opens is affected by what you initially choose, so the door he opens gives you more information than if he opened the door before you choose anything.

[@anakinskywalker212]

The Shakespeare monkey theory its actually too funny 😂 thats a classic

[@Marrangutan]

Monty Hall is easier to visualize if you see it as "I get one door" and "The host gets 99 doors". Then the host opens his goat doors and the "switch" is actually "Do you want ALL of the host's doors INCLUDING THE GOATS or do you want to keep your one door?"

[@jasonquach3541]

I'm not convinced of the Monty Hall one bro. Pulling a Sneaky rn

[@lofilad13]

dude this is huge deja vu LMAOO they spoke about this last year

[@trmb783]

this is the clip from last year

[@JamesSallabim]

this is that clip from last year. The game they're watching is week 8 day 2 of 2021 summer split

[@EclipsaMyrtenaster]

I hope you're just trolling but this was last year lol

[@alexandercorgiat-raymond2812]

When sneaky Morde Ult’s you into arguing against the dumbest point

[@ZaxploitationFilms]

The point of the Monty Hall conundrum is that your first guess is probably wrong. You make a guess on a worse data set so switching is going to be better because your first guess is stastically more likely to be wrong

[@Echo-ie1bt]

Just think of the same problem but with more doors. If there are 100 doors and only 1 has a car, when you pick a door there's a 99% chance you are wrong, and if they reveal 98 doors with nothing, the door you picked still has a 99% chance of being wrong, so switching your answer gives you nearly 100% chance of getting the car, as you know the door you originally selected only has a 1% chance of being the correct door.

[@exp1245]

library of babel is an interesting simulation of the infinite monkey theorem, you can also search specific texts (like a work of shakespeare or something)

[@NoLoseJustLearn]

Sneaky gets why hash collisions will never happen.

[@Nitsu21]

Fr this just a good podcast with league of legends in the background lmfao

[@masonlancaster838]

This will never not be funny

[@UnderPoverP]

What kind of beans they smokin. Seems dank

[@cebo494]

"There's three doors, you chose one, and nothing changes" - Sneaky ALMOST understanding probability When you pick the first door, its 1/3. The part people don't get is that having a door revealed doesn't switch it to 50/50; it's still 1/3 vs 2/3, except you have more information about what that 2/3 actually means, ie. the revealed door is 0/3 and the door you can switch to is 2/3. Your original guess was still 1/3 though. Imagine this hypothetical: instead of revealing a wrong door and asking you to choose between your original and the remaining door they instead just ask "would you like to keep your current door, or open BOTH of the other 2 doors and get the prize if it's behind either?", it becomes much more obvious that switching is better. In the original situation, when they reveal a wrong door and ask if you'd like to switch, they are still basically asking you to switch to BOTH of the other 2 doors, you just know which one is which between the 2 now.

[@cynicalmanatee]

The best way to convince that it is not a 50/50, is that for it to be 50/50, it means that it doesnt matter if you switch or not. let say you pick a door, the host shows you a door, and you decide to do nothing. If that is the case, you are saying that what you picked is the right door. When you made that choice, you took the 1 in 3 gamble. So if you do absolutely nothing, you are winning 33% of the time, not 50% of the time. Since we see that doing nothing is only winning 33% of the time, then the remaining winning probability must be in the other option we didnt do, aka always switching our answer.

[@shinHis3]

The concept of probability is flawed when you don't have a huge number of chances to repeat it over. Sneaky's point is it doesn't matter what happens the other 1000 times. I only have this time. Even if the prize is on the right the other million times, it doesn't matter if now it's on the left.

[@OMGclueless]

@@shinHis3 From a philosophy standpoint yes you can have arguments about the nature of probability. But if you think it's invalid to assign a probability to the event that doesn't happen, then how could you say it was 1/2 instead of 1/3? It's either 1 or it's zero, and while you can object to the entire premise of assigning a number in between those to the outcome, if you allow probability to give you a number it has to be 1/3.

[@shinHis3]

@@OMGclueless I just wrote a bunch of nonsense and deleted it. I guess you could think of it in terms of 1s and 0s, yes. But either way, *for this time,* you don't know. You only know over many times.

[@cynicalmanatee]

@@shinHis3 that's.... A terrible way of looking at reality. That is essentially saying, ignore all facts, I trust my feelings. It's a little crazy watching him say "this is not math, it's just logic" when this is no even remotely logical, it is purely his intuition, which is horribly off the mark.

[@natebozeman4510]

I've never laughed at a YT video this hard in my life 😂 I literally had to lay down lol

[@DeezeNutsInYoMouf]

twitch plays pokemon is proof of infinite monkey theorem working

[@wraithpaints6734]

This is still a great video. You can literally run a simulation of the monty hall problem and it comes out that changing your choice always wins significantly. Silly sneaky and his ego

[@Light-qi8ol]

i can't stop laughing

[@crimps.on.slopers]

In sneaky’s defense the Monty Hall problem was wildly debated by statisticians for 50 years and was only solved when computers were able to run simulations

[@cheesebob799]

Thought this was gonna be DL killing Sneaky over and over.. this was way better

[@unleashedchaos112]

Wishing for co streams back .. we miss the triforce

[@flavoracid]

I studied the Monty Hall problem, this is how it's broken down: People look at the probability of the last two doors having a car, and they say 50/50. That is correct. The chance there is a car behind one of the remaining two doors is 50/50. That's not the question or the problem. The problem is do you switch your decision. The answer is yes, and DL explained it with the 1/100 door problem. With three doors you have a 33% to guess correctly on the first try. Then, one door opens to reveal a goat. Yes, there is a 50/50 that your door has a car, but the probability of you choosing correctly the first time is still 33%, yet the last door, which was one of the original two doors comprising of 66% absorbs the probability. Therefore don't ask yourself if Door 1 or Door 2 has the goat, ask what is the probability I chose correctly the first time, in which it always remains 33%, which is the reasoning behind switching. Goodbye.

[@phooze4953]

This concept has absolutely nothing to do with what they were talking about in this video. But ok.

[@flavoracid]

@@phooze4953 that's the dumbest thing anybody had ever said to me on any social media platform ever. Congrats. And congrats on not watching the video. You're truly a gifted soul. Take care

[@phooze4953]

@@flavoracid The monkey typewriter theory has literally nothing to do with anything you wrote. It's about the concept of infinity, where everything that can possibly happen, will happen. It has absolutely nothing to do with probability. And how was my response the dumbest thing anyone has ever said to you on the internet? LOL. Go outside man, i can smell you

[@sheldonforeman6941]

@@phooze4953 70% of the video is about the monty hall problem.

[@flavoracid]

@@phooze4953 your projection is showing. and again, you clearly, clearly didn't watch the video. You can keep insulting me, but you keep showing your idiocy and idk how to make you see it. Keep talking though, I'm sure more people will come to my comment and tell you to watch the video.

[@markyochoa]

lmao. The Monty Hall problem. I learned about that in university.

[@nicolaos99]

This shit does not get old

[@crimps.on.slopers]

The Monty Hall problem makes sense if you think about it with 1 million doors. The odds are you really small that you guess the right door. Also it mathematically has been proven that it is better to change. They’ve run a lot of simulations

[@samueljenson8473]

I love sneaky, but his absolute defiance in these segments is somehow more triggering now than it was when I watched this live 😂

[@dejakiller69]

12:48 bro when Sneaky said "What do you mean" he fucking lost it, so fcking funny

[@bradleetulio4801]

The infinite monkey theorem works like so: If a random key is pressed an infinite number of times it will reproduce any text. Just like a 4 digit passcode, if given enough permutations you will arive at the 1/9^4 chance of choosing a right passcode..

[@Koryogden]

\[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@Koryogden]

There are infinite combinations of words , is the problem you overlooked

[@briansshare]

it's so good

[@vl3244]

Sneaky saying there's no logic in math just really fuckin hurt my brain lmao. It's a good thing he's good at League 😂

[@SMEAUKE]

Where I’m from; the analogy goes something like this: “Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes.”

[@tontontaik]

I love this

[@SMEAUKE]

@@tontontaik Ain’t it great? 🤣

[@BigDolton]

"6 carasing macaws" I heard something completely different

[@DanteEhome]

I think if there is another chance, Sneaky could be a scientist based on him thinking twice on those dumb questions.

[@apexrays139]

They weren’t dumb questions just theoretical lmao you’re proving dunning-Kruger

[@Koryogden]

\[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@WiseAlbatross]

Quite possibly the greatest 24 minutes in twitch history. This is why the #ThreeMonkeyCast is the premier cast in all of LoL.

[@AdrenalineVideos1337]

I get second hand embarrassed from sneakys hair

[@TheWakabanza]

Here we go again... 😂

[@DeynaAndSilaqui]

Lol are you describing LS at the start?

[@jutyubxD]

What did you say about macaques? 😂😂

[@bradniemiec8032]

Oh god this discussion again lmfao

[@JustDan_777]

the triple monkey theorem got me fucking bawling

[@RAGINGTomato10]

Sneaky is right on the last point. There is only so much you can do to influence the taste of healthy food. You can't recreate the taste of a big mac fully in a healthy way because the ingredients are just inherently unhealthy, and there isn't anything out there (yet) that can simulate the taste of those ingredients. The biggest thing here is mayonnaise and fats in the beef that you can't really replicate 100%. Sure there are substitutes, but they don't emulate the original entirely; it's always slightly "off".

[@lapislazuli6136]

Lmao this is the easist thing to go by with convincing, can you imagine a monkey writing the two first words of William Shakespeare at random? Then can you imagine it type the next letter in William Shakespeare stuff? and that will hit correct 1by1 infinitely

[@Koryogden]

Fyi - the Monkey on a Typewriter WILL NOT reproduce Shakespeare in infinite amount of time. That's not how numbers work. You can flip a coin and eventually get heads, but you can't eventually land on Shakespeare with a typewriter

[@Koryogden]

\[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@krsenryaku8907]

alternate title: 'sneaky reminding dl and meaty toes that 'it's a monkey' they're talking about'

[@dejakiller69]

Ladies and gentlemen, youtube just peaked

[@ryanjohnston9364]

it's definitely very human of us to expect greatness from monkeys only to be met with them literally shitting on our dreams

[@carlstevenson709]

I get it. Odds are most of the time your first pick will be the goat.

[@Vivallamannen]

Meteos is gold

[@brockhay9485]

Im more concerned about the amount of ink the monkey will use.

[@Koryogden]

First off , here it the math equation to calculate the Monkey Theory , as you can see , given Infinite Time , the probability gets closer to ZERO. People thinking otherwise show how much people are SHEEP \[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@kevman2093]

I guess infinite is unfathomable to sneaky lol

[@Koryogden]

Sneaky was right though ... \[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@joaobrito2653]

this is so easily explained by how you guess the lottery number. its entirely random and you will probably never get it, but there is always the chance that yoiu randomly guess it. this is the same thing. nobody ever said the monkey will write it intentionally, but there is a very very very small chance that he types the letters in the correct order

[@Kyun9432]

Bruh I don't think they got the concept of infinity worked through.

[@matthewsinger3030]

To be fair to sneaky on the Monte hall/Goat problem sometimes he is correct. The problem deals with conditional probability and the whole reason why you switch is if the host knows where the car is and you guarantee that he shows a car every time. If the host doesn't know where the car is and sometimes reveals a goat then it doesn't matter if you switch or not when he reveals a car. This is one of the reasons why people get so confused and is not often talked about unless you actually writing the math behind it.

[@stuffhappened9271]

wtf are you talking about

[@Godtierlee]

Only halfway thru but double lift messed up the initial prompt which would easily confuse anyone

[@adorableinsect]

@@stuffhappened9271 They're explaining why the Monte Hall problem is technically true, but intuitively false. Intuitively we assume that if you remove 1 of the doors, the probability left that the car will be behind one of the two remaining doors if 50/50. That is correct, except the Monty Hall problem isn't based on that scenario. The Monty Hall problem assumes that the host knows which door the car is behind, and intentionally reveals a goat. That means if you chose door A and the show host can either reveal door B or C, they're going to reveal the one the goat is behind. That increases the odds that the remaining door, either B or C, has the car behind it, because the host added information to the scenario by having prior knowledge of which door the car was behind. If the host didn't know which door the car was behind, no new information is being added, so the final choice would be 50/50. The Monty Hall problem is communicated poorly, and misunderstood, so people think it's some mathematical magic when in reality it's just the host's prior knowledge being factored into the scenario. If the host has no idea, they could accidentally reveal the car in the first phase, which would ruin the suspense. To avoid that, the host will always avoid revealing the car in the first phase, which is NOT the same as random probability. That is why swapping to the other door after the first phase is the correct choice. Meteos actually pointed this flaw out briefly, but no one was listening.

[@xXUpper90sXx]

@@adorableinsect Intuitively false doesn't fucking mean anything lmfao it means your intuition is false, literally nothing more.

[@sheldonforeman6941]

That's the whole point of the Monty Hall problem, that the host knows where the prize is and will show you an incorrect choice. If that doesn't happen then it ceases to be the Monty hall problem, the show wouldn't work. I guess he's situationally right about the goat problem and just wrong about the monty hall

[@crazySeafood]

It does make a difference, but I guess it's not surprising as none of them have taken a probability and statistics course. Funny ah though lol

[@paulmartin2348]

The funniest thing about all this is these people do not have critical thinking and are stuck trying to prove their original thought. You pick 1 of 3 doors so you have a 33.3% chance of selecting the car. The 2 doors you did NOT chose are 2 or 3 so 66.6% chance of one of those 2 containing the car. He opens a door but he ALWAYS shows the goat. YOUR choice is still 1/3 and the other 2 doors probability is still 2/3 the door open showing the goat means the closed door that you did NOT chose is 2/3 or 66.6% chance to get the car if you switch your pick. (how showing you the goat does not change the odds that your first pick was 33.3%.

[@Afanasiy2023]

I wonder if he understands evolution

[@Koryogden]

\[ P = \lim_{{t \to \infty}} \left( \frac{1}{n} ight)^k \] As time (t) approaches infinity, the probability approaches zero due to the vast number of possible combinations. This reflects the idea that, given infinite time, the likelihood of randomly producing a specific sequence becomes extremely low.

[@matiasortiz9014]

what they fail to understand is that its just "PROBABILITY" so it doesnt matter if you have 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chances of getting it right or chosing the right door, if you press honing with 99% you might fail and get pitty

[@SinVVV]

The problem here is that infinity itself is a scam

[@stuffhappened9271]

Library of Babel

[@WingPlaysGames]

gonna be honest thought sneaky of all people would get it

[@StCloud-dp3eh]

Holy hell this was painful people do not get infinity at all...

[@LumieX]

He understands infinity, you're just not getting what he's saying. He's saying that even if the monkey had infinite time it still wouldn't be possible and he's correct. In fact, the odds that a monkey randomly hitting keys on a typewriter even typing a single paragraph of any given work of Shakespear is effectively zero, let alone the entire complete works. It's just an extremely dumb theory. Impossible things cannot occur regardless of the time they are given.

[@travismolnoskey2745]

According to google Shakespeare's works consist of 884421 words. Again according to google we get the average English word is 4.7 letters so we get 4156779 letters that we need to press in order. Even if you restrict the keyboard/typewriter to the 26 letters plus a spacebar then the probability of this happening would be (1/27)^4156779 or reduced to ~3^(-6^22) aka a really fucking small number. but since it's non-zero after an infinite amount of time it's probable to happen. hopefully my math was right i'm bad at reducing large powers.

[@TellusJD]

Sneaky perfectly understands infinity as much as all other people understand it. Its mainly that mathematicians dont understands monkeys. And more people here doesnt understand it either. Lets say you have a monkey with a fat finger that will always hit 2 letters at the same time. Given infinite amount of time it will never recreate any text simply because it cant write a word like "a" fx. But if you could have true randomness which actually doesnt exist then theoreticly if it was a true random computer given infinite amount of time which is anyway something that doesnt exists, then theoretically it could happen. But it could be an infinity where it didnt happen simply because there is an infinite amount of possiblities that isnt shakespear, it would have to be an infinite amount of random computers in and infinite amount of time then it surely would happen. It would have to be infinite squared. And all this is fully theoretically and completely irrelevant and will never happen therefore you could say the theory is false as it will never happen. Its like saying out of a volcano eruption there is a chance that a perfect new ferrari f40 with the keys in its ignition would spring out and land perfectly unscratched. The molecules just happened to fall like that. Well it doesnt matter if theres an infinite amount of volcano eruptions it will never happen. But if we go to the monty hall game, there is just no doubt switching is the best, people just take some time with good explanation to understand that it isnt a 50/50 situation. But a 33% vs 66 %.

[@elleeVee]

NO NOT THIS AGAIN, GO AWAY

[@xXUpper90sXx]

The irony of this clip / topic discussion is that these three love to shit on people who don't actually understand League but still talk about it like they do - in fact that's how this clip starts. Then they go off on this discussion with zero self-awareness of how ridiculous it is for three guys with like three semesters of half-assed college between them to comment on the validity of a machine-proven probability theory - especially Sneaky sticking so hard to it being wrong. Legit the equivalent of his Twitch chatters telling him he's building wrong.

[@sheldonforeman6941]

kind of a good point

[@ScosilVIDEOS]

you think they would be talking like this if a fields medalist mathematician joined the call? they are fucking around you dork

[@Afanasiy2023]

Florida education

[@stefanrabenstein3753]

lmao wtf Sneaky

[@samuelbrionese278]

Takeaway from this vid: Stay in school, guys