**Study Debunks Infinite Monkey Theorem's Practicality**

The age-old thought experiment known as the Infinite Monkey Theorem posits that if an infinite number of monkeys were to type at random for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. However, recent research conducted by mathematicians Stephen Woodcock and Jay Falletta from the University of Technology Sydney challenges this notion when applied in a finite context.

Woodcock and Falletta's study examined the plausibility of producing a sequence matching Shakespeare's works using a finite number of monkeys and a finite amount of time. Their calculations considered variables such as the number of monkeys—ranging from one to 200,000, mirroring the estimated global population of chimpanzees—and the longevity of the universe, estimated to be a googol of years.

The results were less than favorable for advocates of the theorem. For instance, a solitary chimpanzee operating a keyboard with 30 keys has only a 5% probability of typing the word "bananas" within its lifetime. The entire 884,647-word collection of Shakespearean texts would require a staggering 200,000 monkeys typing for a googol years, with the likelihood of success being a minuscule 6.4 x 10^-7448254—essentially zero.

Even more modest goals appear unattainable. The researchers' estimations showed an improbability of 6.4 x 10^-15043 for generating the roughly 1,800-word children's book "Curious George" by the time the universe reaches heat death.

This new perspective classifies the Infinite Monkey Theorem as a paradox, akin to other paradoxes wherein results diverge between infinite and finite scenarios. Examples include the St. Petersburg paradox, Zeno's dichotomy paradox, and the Ross-Littlewood paradox, each presenting theoretical outcomes that collapse under finite conditions.

In their paper, Woodcock and Falletta concluded that the concept of monkeys producing meaningful written works is not feasible within our finite reality. They pointed to Shakespeare himself for an inadvertent yet fitting conclusion, citing Hamlet: "No."