Sorry, this is not a mathematical proof. Any stats man worth his salt could rip this to shreds. The monkey analogy holds true if you assume an infinite universe. The author extrapolates data and predicts an outcome without considering the concept of infinity. Remember, to disprove a law, you only need to provide one counterexample.In other words, a law is only a law if it applies to ALL systems or situations. This guy shows a general trend but he does not address all possible permutations which , by definition, must be true in order for this to be a proof.
It looks to me like the author took a pre conceived conclusion and form fitted his calculations to support it. Shame on him. He needs to decide if he is a mathematician or an evangelist.
"Sorry, this is not a mathematical proof. Any stats man worth his salt could rip this to shreds. The monkey analogy holds true if you assume an infinite universe. The author extrapolates data and predicts an outcome without considering the concept of infinity." The author discussed your complaint above at length in his article. Sadly, you'd have to read it to know that, however...