I think they need to spend a weekend in Hilbert’s Grand Hotel and I recommend they do not use Zeno’s taxi service to get there.
How about “Two mathematicians abuse the academic system in so-far successful attempt to become internet celebrities and cash in on their new-found STEM populizer personas.”
It’s kinda long for a head, but it might be a sub-head or lede.
Hey, I’ve written several books hunt-and-pecking. Good books, too, and in less time than infinity. My father had a pet spider monkey, which he gave up when I was born, so it all makes sense.
Can they eat at Cantor’s Table?
Sea monkeys?
Something like twenty years ago there was a distributed computing thing called the Million Monkeys Project. Your computer was comparing random strings of letters to the text of Shakespeare’s works and, as I remember, noting any match of ten characters, though I only ever found a few matches.
I look forward to the follow up economics paper analyzing how financially unfeasible it would be running housekeeping in an infinite hotel.
See (a quick and worthwhile read):
I endorse this pitting along with a secondary pit to the Guardian for posting about scientific papers without mentioning which journal has standards low enough to publish what amounts to a homework assignment for an intro to probability class.
In other news, strip mining by bird beak has been deemed infeasible.
ETA: Looking through several other sources (has no one in the media heard of presenting primary sources) I finally found one that linked to the paper. And it is a bit more complicated than I thought because their paper adjusts for the possibility of monkeys producing multiple copies of Shakespeare, and for differences between N monkeys producing K strings vs one monkey producing an N*K strings due to the multiple end points. So for actual application with shorter strings than Shakespeare this could be interesting and useful look at the efficiency of brute force trial end error. But for these side cases have an infinitesimal effect on the case that they claim to be evaluating in their paper. And by couching the potentially useful finding in a clickbaity premise it gets completely lost.
If seven maids with seven mops swept it for half a year…
Yep… .
The definitive study:
I hope this puts the question to rest.
Alright. We’ll call it a draw.
Yep. Shakespeare is Shit. 
I’m guessing that the number of monkeys and the number of typewriters was < 
.
I’m imagining a hotel inhabited by a vast number of monkeys. It’s gonna take a lot of maids to manage all the flung poo.
Whatever else can be said of typing monkeys, careful hygiene and genteel habits are not among them.
Well not Shakespeare but they might be able to write the script for Caddyshack 2.
I still consider the experiment an unqualified success. The line about the alpha male may be the greatest sentence ever composed, even if written by a non-monkey.
This was relatable science, people, not the usual dry, eggheaded snooze fest. I learned a lot.
Would they write a script “Planet of the Humans”
Then Monkeywood gets a hold of it and puts Ape actors in crappy Human masks. With poor plot and subplot and a terrible ending and then a franchise that just won’t stop.
Gah!!!
The grass in the ass is sounding better and better.
The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters.[d] Thus, there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10^183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946,[e] or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10^360,783.[f]
Over the course of infinity even those numbers are nothing.