Paper detail

A Paradoxical Property of the Monkey Book

A "monkey book" is a book consisting of a random distribution of letters and blanks, where a group of letters surrounded by two blanks is defined as a word. We compare the statistics of the word distribution for a monkey book with the corresponding distribution for the general class of random books, where the latter are books for which the words are randomly distributed. It is shown that the word distribution statistics for the monkey book is different and quite distinct from a typical sampled book or real book. In particular the monkey book obeys Heaps' power law to an extraordinary good approximation, in contrast to the word distributions for sampled and real books, which deviate from Heaps' law in a characteristics way. The somewhat counter-intuitive conclusion is that a "monkey book" obeys Heaps' power law precisely because its word-frequency distribution is not a smooth power law, contrary to the expectation based on simple mathematical arguments that if one is a power law, so is the other.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.