I refuted this in post 373. Your suggestion would be a waste of time because unless the error was in the first link of the chain, adding a single link to the end will not matter at all. According to Jay L. Devore on page 92 of Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences, 4th ed. (1995, Wadsworth, Inc.),
What does matter is the sequence of the resulting output, and for that, the math in this thread calculates it perfectly.
You are correct on the second part. Your analogy fails on the first. Who has ever suggested discussing an unending chain of base pairs? That would be silly. The math is valid only for discrete trials. The author says so. I have show you where. And statistician will tell so so. Not that it really matters because
Period, the end. Until you recognize that I'm wasting my time.
What part of sequencing do you not understand?
The author's math is for a sequence of data. In this case, the first sentence of Shakespeare's Hamlet: "To be or not to be, that is the question."
What produces our chaotic output? Metaphorical monkeys banging on keyboards.
Where do we search for the desired first sentence above? We search in every sequential part of every output string produced in our example.
Are there intermediate steps? In the creation of this data, yes. The monkeys bang out characters one after another rather than all at once.
Our math is literally looking at every linear string of 41 characters in all of our output. If the first character isn't the desired first character, then we look at the second. If the second character isn't the desired character, then we start looking at the third. If the first 41 characters don't contain the desired sequence, then our math is looking at the next 41 and so on for all possible linear sequential combinations.
Does that miss anything? No.
You don't skip intermediate steps in that math. All intermediate steps are accounted for, mathematically.