Apologies if this is a very basic/obvious question. I have no training in philosophy, but have been making my way through Peter Adamson's History of Philosophy podcast.
Recently I listened to his interview with Richard Sorabji (the transcript can be found here), where they discuss views on time. In particular, he says this in the middle of a discussion about the difference between something being "eternal" and "necessary".
Now the common idea is that if you took monkeys - let them be eternally existing monkeys on an eternally existing typewriter - if they went on randomly typing for eternal time, they would eventually have to write out the works of Shakespeare. A lot of people think that's true, but it isn't actually true at all.
I'm approaching this from my background, which is in mathematics, where I would definitely feel comfortable asserting that the works of Shakespeare would eventually be written out, along with all other finite strings (maybe if considering infinite strings I would have to sit and think for a bit).
Is there some deeper philosophical idea why he says this? Is he arguing in terms of this question that the issue is just a logistical one? The claim isn't discussed any further so I assume it's not controversial, maybe there's a well-known refutation but at least on my limited research I haven't been able to find anything (except for some debates on the intention of art which have nothing to do with randomly generated strings).
(Tags are my best guess but please correct if there are more appropriate ones available.