This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page could use correction -- from somebody who understands what the original author was trying to say. Possibly the author was not a native speaker of English. P0M
I am removing the following comment (not mine) from the article text:
<!-- 'Einstein did know about the Michelson-Morley experiment null result' ... see Wolfram's comment :
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html -->
— Kdau 00:31, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
there's something fishy about that Latin. Is it perhaps actually nulla resultarum? -- Iustinus 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The claim that "Generally, a null result is a result which is null (nothing): that is, the absence of an observable result" is incompatible with the definitions as used in statistics, science logic and law; thus I doubt that it's correct. I'll remove it if it isn't backed up by a citation in the coming week. Harald88 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
... it would result in an unspecified program critical mass ejection error! -- Chris 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the article from saying that a null result is evidence for the null hypothesis, to just saying that it fails to reject the null hypothesis. For example, a null result may arise simply because the sample size was too small. — Alan ✉ 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Can a mention of the size of certain aetheric strings in string theory and it's null result in detection? The characteristic length scale of strings is thought to be on the order of the Planck length. -- J. D. Redding 11:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(moved the discullion abut the phrase The term is popularly given as the translation of the scientific Latin nullus resultarum, meaning "no consequence", but this is actually grammatically incorrect and not the phrase's origin. The correct Latin would be nullus resultus.
from my talk page here.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 19:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC))
I know the rules of Wikipedia, and I know that Wikipedia pages need refs, but I think you are reverting my edits unjustly here. The original page had the explanation, which I fixed. You shouldn't just remove the entire mention of it. Evidently people agree with my point (not that that matters much here).
You removed the section yourself with no refs, you know. I'm sure it shouldn't be that way. Please, if you are going to revert my edits, give it constructive change- all you've done is remove content which should be there.
Gratias. Issacus Divus ( talk) 05:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
"We don’t delete the text just because the writing can be improved. We don’t delete the texts; we let them be improved".
I never made an unreferenced claim. I only corrected the original material. I do hope someone else sees this.
Issacus Divus ( talk) 19:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page could use correction -- from somebody who understands what the original author was trying to say. Possibly the author was not a native speaker of English. P0M
I am removing the following comment (not mine) from the article text:
<!-- 'Einstein did know about the Michelson-Morley experiment null result' ... see Wolfram's comment :
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html -->
— Kdau 00:31, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
there's something fishy about that Latin. Is it perhaps actually nulla resultarum? -- Iustinus 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The claim that "Generally, a null result is a result which is null (nothing): that is, the absence of an observable result" is incompatible with the definitions as used in statistics, science logic and law; thus I doubt that it's correct. I'll remove it if it isn't backed up by a citation in the coming week. Harald88 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
... it would result in an unspecified program critical mass ejection error! -- Chris 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the article from saying that a null result is evidence for the null hypothesis, to just saying that it fails to reject the null hypothesis. For example, a null result may arise simply because the sample size was too small. — Alan ✉ 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Can a mention of the size of certain aetheric strings in string theory and it's null result in detection? The characteristic length scale of strings is thought to be on the order of the Planck length. -- J. D. Redding 11:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(moved the discullion abut the phrase The term is popularly given as the translation of the scientific Latin nullus resultarum, meaning "no consequence", but this is actually grammatically incorrect and not the phrase's origin. The correct Latin would be nullus resultus.
from my talk page here.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 19:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC))
I know the rules of Wikipedia, and I know that Wikipedia pages need refs, but I think you are reverting my edits unjustly here. The original page had the explanation, which I fixed. You shouldn't just remove the entire mention of it. Evidently people agree with my point (not that that matters much here).
You removed the section yourself with no refs, you know. I'm sure it shouldn't be that way. Please, if you are going to revert my edits, give it constructive change- all you've done is remove content which should be there.
Gratias. Issacus Divus ( talk) 05:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
"We don’t delete the text just because the writing can be improved. We don’t delete the texts; we let them be improved".
I never made an unreferenced claim. I only corrected the original material. I do hope someone else sees this.
Issacus Divus ( talk) 19:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)