Yes and it was part of wiki’s discussion of very large numbers, which are different than infinity.
Compelling evidence that an infinite number of monkeys pounding randomly on typewriters for an infinite amount of time could produce a copy of Gadsby.
My favorite “take” on the “monkeys with typewriters” is W.R. Bennett’s 1977 article “How Artificial is Intelligence?”, in which he describes his experiemts using a random number gebnerator and software that produces letters at a rate equal to that of thew letter’s probability, in lieu of an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27848169
Unfortunately, I can’t find the whoile thing for free online, but that gives you the first page, at least.
He used “space” as a letter, too.
The basic program gave you gibberish, but then he started programming in the probabilities of two-letter pairs (“aa”, “ab”, “ac”, etc.) and using those in the proper probabilitiues, and things started looked less random. So he graduated from “second degree monkeys” to “third degree monkeys”, using the probabilities of sets of three letters, and then on to fourth order and fifth order monkeys and beyond.
he found that fourth order monkeys came up with a lot of obscenities, interestingly enough. By the time you’re doing sixth order monkeys in a foreign language you don’t know, it becomes hard to tell the monkey’s output from real text. Some of the things his higher-order monkeys came up with are hilarious.
How Artificial Is Intelligence? The great works of literature and art are not merely rare statistical fluctuations, but are they simply the products of correlation matrices?
W. R. Bennett Jr.
American Scientist
Vol. 65, No. 6 (November-December 1977), pp. 694-702 (9 pages)
Sounds like he invented the precursor to a Large Language Model.
Heck, the mean time for the universe to spontaneously reform by random thermal motion after decaying completely into heat death can be expressed in a reasonable number of nested exponential powers of ten. And that’s nothing compared to truly large numbers; which infinity is still infinitely larger than.
Flipping the theory on its head, I wonder if Shakespeare, given a typewriter and infinite time, could come up with the complete works of The Monkees.
Darn hard to write music on a typewriter. Lyrics, yes; music not so much. Better give him some staff paper too. 
With standard typewriters anyway; there were of course custom typing machines for composing music.
Markov model, I would think? That is indeed a way to characterize a language and its writing system with certain statistics, and distinguish among different languages.
You do not need any esoteric theory of really big numbers to solve this problem. If the expected time is many orders of magnitude longer than the expected lifetime of the universe (which is not that long, it is not going to happen.
It makes for a nice exercise: e.g. show that it will take the monkeys longer to type out AAAAAAAA than GFNEOCVH. Random monkeys, that is, which also highlights the difference to “real” monkeys.
A scientific study has also arrived at the conclusion that since the man passed away in 1961, Schrodinger’s cat is also likely dead as well.
He’s not dead.
Not as long as we remember him.
If he’s not dead, I hope someone’s been changing his cat litter.
See, I think Schroedinger should have theorized about the Cat Box. Until you look in it, there’s only a 50% probability that it’s been used.
So never open it.
Of course there’s the spooky action at a distance of the aroma of used vs unused cat boxes to contend with. Which aroma tends to collapse the wavefunction.
Hey. Took some time off from screens to help out my friend. We got the job done and now I’m back!
I think Bob Newhart really has the definitive word on this.
Bennett quotes that Bob Newhart routine in the first couple of pages of his paper.
Is lack of thumbs really the limiting factor for non-human animals?
Defiantly makes catching a ride home when your car breaks down more difficult.
Thumbs aren’t necessarily your best choice: