WikiProject Apple Inc. |
---|
Collaboration: |
Project News |
This WikiProject is getting restarted! You can message
User:Snowycats.
|
Navigation: |
{{
Project Apple Inc.}} : |
Tools |
Portal • changes |
Thank you for your changes to Probability theory. And I have one request. Would you mind using the edit summary more often when you contribute. It is rather helpful, at least for me, when I stuble into some change on my watchlist, to get a contributor's view of what he changed. Thanks a lot, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:John_Venn.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
At frequency probability, I added this:
In an edit summary, you called this whole paragraph "vandalism". I think the material you called vandalism is factually correct, very much on-topic and well-positioned within the article, and in conformance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I've taught probability and statistics at the University of Minnesota, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and the University of Toledo. I also have far more experience editing Wikipedia articles on topics related to this and on other topics than you do. "Vandalism" is not defined as "material that User talk:INic doesn't like. You are using the word incredibly promiscuously and stupidly. Michael Hardy 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
INic, you've made it evident that any attempt to engage you in discussion is a waste of time. You've repeatedly shown you know nothing about Wikipedia and much less than you think about the topic under discussion, while insulting everyone else who edits the page. Until you change your attitude, you're wasting your time here JQ 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said, and applicable to many articles on paradoxes. 192.75.48.150 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw your edits on that page and I would call them very reasonable indeed. However, Slam is still watching the page and won't let go, so corrections are frutile and just give him the opportunity for more insults. - In the meanwhile I see that this is his major reason to work on this article. (Compare the huge number of comments he wrote with the small number of actual changes he did on this article!) - What should we do? Give up and leave it like that? Maybe he's going for new targets then? Rieger 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
See, iNic: that's exactly what I mean. :( Rieger 10:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I see what you mean, Rieger. He's the perfect example of a person that as soon he's running out of good arguments he start to curse. And he curse a lot. Only time will tell if he eventually will understand what wikipedia is all about and how to behave here, or if he will be blocked away forever. iNic 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way: [ [1]] No comments. Rieger 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you again vandalize a user page as you did mine, then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — SlamDiego 06:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You deleted a paragraph at Probability theory with edit summary deleted confusing paragraph. [2] Could you explain what you find confusing about this paragraph, so that it can be made less confusing, rather than just deleting this quite essential information? -- Lambiam 23:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is regarding this revert. I think that when you say the distribution, you should be more precise. Do you mean the distribution of the total sum of the money in both envelopes, or do you mean the distribution of the money in the envelope containing less money, or do you mean the distribution of the pair. Of course, in this case it does not really matter. So I suggest that we just say the distribution of the total money in both envelopes, as this is simple. Oded ( talk) 16:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Which of the versions of the "paradox" do you consider to be still unresolved? Oded ( talk) 05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed Fisher from the frequentist probability article on the basis of the documentation in Savage:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958221I'm sure that you can find the discussion of Fisher's strongly expressed dislike of frequentism, which is early in the article.
(Of course, all probabilists and statisticians are frequentists in some sense: The law of large numbers implies that any theory of probability implies that frequencies exist.)
Thanks for your consideration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, INic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MartinPoulter ( talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, INic! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently seeing very little activity. We are trying to revive the project and your help would be appreciated. To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. Hope to see you in the "active" column! For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · EdwardsBot ( talk) 02:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, INic! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently being revived. Your help would be appreciated! To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. The role call will end May 31; please move your name now if you are still interested. For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · MonoBot 04:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear iNic, could you please email me pdf's of the main articles cited on the two envelopes problem page? gill@math.leidenuniv.nl (if you do have them yourself).
I will post my analysis (currently written out on my talk page on wikipedia) on my university home page [ [4]] and after I've had some feedback, also post this as a short article on arXiv.org
I'll probably add a literature survey and critique.
Then any editor who finds the material useful and notable can refer to it.
Your comments on the content are welcome.
Thanks in advance. Richard Gill ( talk) 06:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, I think I was able to collect just about all the sources, though as Syverson (2010) says "Indeed if there is anything inherently unbounded about the two-envelope paradox, it is that each search will uncover at least one more reference."
Are you still interested in the article? I just rewrote the "non-probabilistic" section, after some deep study of many papers in logic and philosophy. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Tell me what you think needs to be sourced and I'll give you references. Sure some of my texts are hard to understand. They shouldn't be REMoved, they should be IMPRoved. (You can understand them, I hope? If not, tell me, and I'll try to explain, and once you've understood, you'll be able to improve. Collaborative editing. Always make the good faith assumption. Just deleting is not constructive; and it exhibits bad faith in the other's motives).
There are at least three completely different two envelope problems. With and without opening the first envelope, with and without probability. They all have very easy solutions, in their own terms. And they have different solutions for readers with different backgrounds. Probabilists, economists, logicians all see different issues. A layperson can "defuse" the paradox (es) by common sense, but is not equipped to even see what the different academics are on about. Should the layman care? Probably not. Should the academic professional care that the layman doesn'tcare? Probably not. The literature is vaste and complex. A big challenge to an encyopediist who has to write both for laypersons and for *all* the academic communities. Solution: collaborative editing. It requires that *all *participants recogniise the "relativity" and hence incompleteness of their own point if view Richard Gill ( talk) 08:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
iNic, will you please provide me with sources which explain why TEP is a philosophical problem. It seems to me TEP is a problem about logic and logic lies at the basis of both philosophy and mathematics.
Please will you also tell me if you are a philosopher or a logician yourself. I'm interested to understand why you think that Schwitzgebel and Dever is such a brilliant philosophy paper (written by two philosophy PhD students about a problem outside of their specialist fields). Richard Gill ( talk) 16:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please will you also tell me if you are aware of any secondary or tertiary sources about TEP (eg University undergraduate texts) in philosophy. There do exist such sources in mathematics, e.g. Cox's book on inference (though some would call this a graduate text, not undergraduate). Research articles are primary sources according to wikipedia rules which you so strongly adhere to. We are not allowed to write articles whose reliable sources are original research articles. This rules out almost all of the literature on TEP. The rest consists of blogs by amateurs. That is also not a reliable source for an academic subject. The main message for the layman should be that original TEP and Smullyan's TEP are examples of faulty logical reasoning caused by using the same symbol (or verbal description) to stand for different things at the same time. This is the executive summary of almost all the articles I have studied so far, by the way. Then TEP with opened envelope belongs to probability and decision theory and is useful in the classroom for showing the strange things that happen with infinite expectation values. You do *not* expect an infinite expectation because you never live long enough. You are always disappointed. In the long run you are dead (Keynes). That's it. That's the executive summary of the decision theoretic / statistical literature on this topic. I will write a survey paper containing no original research and not promoting any personal point of view, and then at last we will have a good secondary source for the wikipedia article.
I think that Falk's paper constitutes a secondary source. She analyses TEP from the point of view of teaching probability. Her executive summary is the same as what I just mentioned: examples of faulty logical reasoning caused by using the same symbol (or verbal description) to stand for different things at the same time. Don't worry, almost all of the philosophers say the same thing, but of course want to say it in a subtly different way from earlier authors, since their job is to publish papers in which they nit-pick in previously published papers.
I'm participating in a philosophy conference tomorrow at which several authors of TEP papers are present. That will be interesting. Richard Gill ( talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you intend to call me a vandal? " rvv" means revert vandalism, as opposed to a garden-variety revert (rv).-- Father Goose ( talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Food for thought! Richard Gill ( talk) 10:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
Dear iNic, please note the following exchange on Martin's two envelopes sub-talk page:
Elsewhere you wrote:
You are saying that if the money was alien, not only would we not know the actual worth of the amounts in the two envelopes, we wouldn't even know which envelope contained the larger amount. This situation is easily solved by thinking about utility. Since our knowledge about the currency is zero our expected utility for the amount in either envelope is the same.
You say that TEP is not confined to the topology of the real line. I disagree. It depends only on the ordering of the real line, and our ability to map the ordering monotonely to utility. My unified solution applies to all known variants. It also applies to alien currencies whose value is not known (but whose ordering is known) and to totally alien currencies - those whose ordering is not known. If you have got to choose an envelope before you get to learn about the currency, then the appropriate utility to use is not the actual but unknown utilities of the two amounts of alien money (which you would only know if the inscriptions on the coins were explained to you, and the exchange rate was fixed) but the expected utility of the amounts before getting this information. By ignorance and symmetry the expected utilities of two completely alien amounts of money, even whose ordering is unknown, is equal. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
iNic, in a personal email you asked for my present reaction to one of your ideas above. We had a discussion here, which stopped with your comment posted at 11:49, 29 November 2011. Sorry I did not respond earlier. Here is a fresh answer: Ah, so you suggest to rephrase the problem. I will make a start. Maybe you can fill in the two bits I left empty, marked X and Y:
We have two envelopes. They each contain a certificate. Each will lead to some outcome, not divulged. All we know is that one is preferable to the other and that we will only know which is which at some later date. Our friends will admire us if we pick the right envelope. If we pick the wrong envelope we will be thought a fool. We must make a choice, now. We reason to ourselves, since we know nothing but must pick one, we can only pick at random. We do so. We are now holding one envelope. The devil now says: you made your choice, but now I’m changing the rules. I give you the opportunity to switch. After you have decided to switch or not (and after the switch has been performed, if that was your choice) I will tell you, and all the world, which envelope you have. I now reason ...X... and decide it is wiser to stick to my first choice. But I realise I can also reason ...Y... and then it would be wiser to switch.
iNic: I think it is *your* task to come up with those two “reasonings” (the ones marked X and Y) so that we have a new paradox. And once we have a paradox we can discuss its resolution.
I sense that you might be on to something interesting connected to Buddhism or to the thinking of Wittgenstein or to artificial intelligence, ie to a paradox of consciousness and the mind-brain problem. Or to exchangability in physics, which leads to the great issues in quantum mechanics and the question, what is reality. Or both. Does reality exist, or is there only information? There is nothing but the information which we have. We are agents and have the possibility to gain information but we won’t know what we have gained till after we have gained it. This is actually simply solipcism, which is a rude word in philosophy, but it stands for a perfectly reasonable intellectual position to take. I heard a great talk recently where it was explained that all the paradoxes of quantum entanglement go back to the notion of “identical particles”. Once you accept that a particle here and another far away are identical, and you assume quantum mechanics, you generate spooky action at a distance and the interrelatedness of all things and the Schrödinger cat problem... Richard Gill ( talk) 12:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Two envelopes problem/sources, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a
mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
DASHBot (
talk)
06:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You have been warned about the harassment you made against me in talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two_envelopes_problem#The_full_basis_of_the_argument_to_switch_must_be_made_clear_at_some_point Specifically, you intentionaly exposed my work organisation. 89.31.176.13 ( talk) 06:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have oversighted that information, and all the subsequent edits up to my removal of same. Since you have been editing for about as long as I have and have no apparent issues, I'm assuming that you were just unaware that posting information which could be used to identify an IP user's workplace when the edits aren't about their employer is a violation of the outing policy. So, you do now. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
User INic has threatened me twice that I would be blocked if I continue to revert his deletions. The incident has happened in the revision summary of the following history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Two_envelopes_problem&action=history on 14:28, 14 October 2014 and on 19:18, 2 October 2014. The reason provided by INic is the 3RR rule which clearly doesn't apply to my case because I revert his deletions at most one time per day. I believe that he is doing that on purpose to frighten me and to stop me from reverting his deletions. I believe that this case is also a harassment - threat as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats Caramella1 ( talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Magioladitis:.
First, you did not follow the instructions when applying {{
bots}}, specifically, Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community
. Vast majority of the time the template doesn't need to be applied and a solution can be worked out.
Second, using <br>
for spacing goes against
html standards. It also can cause problems with accessibility. Looking at how other math equations look on the page, using the two br tags makes it look out of place... way too much vertical blank space compared to the other equations.
What Yobot did is also wrong. Not only does it look way, way wrong, it also blows accessibility out of the water.
I've added the {{ ordered list}} template while using the ':' wiki notation. The colon not only indents but applies the right amount of vertical space. The ordered list template makes is accessibility sound when using a colon or br tag. Personally, I like the look of it being indented... it looks better and is like the other big equations on the article. Using a br tag instead of a colon makes it look claustrophobic. If you have questions or concerns, please ping me. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for fixing this. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Two envelopes problem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Giant Snowman 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
INic, you have reverted again even after you have been warned. Please stop. Please try to understand how the BRD-cycle works. Caramella1 ( talk) 10:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Giant Snowman 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
INic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is a consensus among all other editors to keep the disputed section off the page. I will let other editors remove this section in the future.
Accept reason:
Following the discussion on this page, I've unblocked your account. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk)
01:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)INic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
These allegations are ridiculous, and of course totally false. However, this is not the first time this user has made false allegations against me so I'm not surprised.
Accept reason:
Following the checkuser of your account, it seems that you are not the same user as Perswapish. PhilKnight ( talk) 09:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added my support to Perswapish's latest unblock request. You might like to add yours. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 00:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, INic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, INic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I made an edit to Two envelopes problem based on a problem I identified on how readers would be mislead. I justified this change on Talk:Two envelopes problem. While my talk page thread necessarily discusses details of the paradox, I'm not making an argument about the problem specifically; it identifies how the article doesn't correctly summarize the sources, and my justification of the edit shouldn't be removed from the talk page. If you're going to revert the change then please to provide sources for the text that's on there. The current paragraph has no sources and is not encyclopedic. Awwright ( talk) 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Apple Inc. |
---|
Collaboration: |
Project News |
This WikiProject is getting restarted! You can message
User:Snowycats.
|
Navigation: |
{{
Project Apple Inc.}} : |
Tools |
Portal • changes |
Thank you for your changes to Probability theory. And I have one request. Would you mind using the edit summary more often when you contribute. It is rather helpful, at least for me, when I stuble into some change on my watchlist, to get a contributor's view of what he changed. Thanks a lot, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:John_Venn.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
At frequency probability, I added this:
In an edit summary, you called this whole paragraph "vandalism". I think the material you called vandalism is factually correct, very much on-topic and well-positioned within the article, and in conformance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I've taught probability and statistics at the University of Minnesota, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and the University of Toledo. I also have far more experience editing Wikipedia articles on topics related to this and on other topics than you do. "Vandalism" is not defined as "material that User talk:INic doesn't like. You are using the word incredibly promiscuously and stupidly. Michael Hardy 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
INic, you've made it evident that any attempt to engage you in discussion is a waste of time. You've repeatedly shown you know nothing about Wikipedia and much less than you think about the topic under discussion, while insulting everyone else who edits the page. Until you change your attitude, you're wasting your time here JQ 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said, and applicable to many articles on paradoxes. 192.75.48.150 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw your edits on that page and I would call them very reasonable indeed. However, Slam is still watching the page and won't let go, so corrections are frutile and just give him the opportunity for more insults. - In the meanwhile I see that this is his major reason to work on this article. (Compare the huge number of comments he wrote with the small number of actual changes he did on this article!) - What should we do? Give up and leave it like that? Maybe he's going for new targets then? Rieger 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
See, iNic: that's exactly what I mean. :( Rieger 10:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I see what you mean, Rieger. He's the perfect example of a person that as soon he's running out of good arguments he start to curse. And he curse a lot. Only time will tell if he eventually will understand what wikipedia is all about and how to behave here, or if he will be blocked away forever. iNic 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way: [ [1]] No comments. Rieger 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you again vandalize a user page as you did mine, then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — SlamDiego 06:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You deleted a paragraph at Probability theory with edit summary deleted confusing paragraph. [2] Could you explain what you find confusing about this paragraph, so that it can be made less confusing, rather than just deleting this quite essential information? -- Lambiam 23:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is regarding this revert. I think that when you say the distribution, you should be more precise. Do you mean the distribution of the total sum of the money in both envelopes, or do you mean the distribution of the money in the envelope containing less money, or do you mean the distribution of the pair. Of course, in this case it does not really matter. So I suggest that we just say the distribution of the total money in both envelopes, as this is simple. Oded ( talk) 16:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Which of the versions of the "paradox" do you consider to be still unresolved? Oded ( talk) 05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed Fisher from the frequentist probability article on the basis of the documentation in Savage:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958221I'm sure that you can find the discussion of Fisher's strongly expressed dislike of frequentism, which is early in the article.
(Of course, all probabilists and statisticians are frequentists in some sense: The law of large numbers implies that any theory of probability implies that frequencies exist.)
Thanks for your consideration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, INic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MartinPoulter ( talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, INic! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently seeing very little activity. We are trying to revive the project and your help would be appreciated. To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. Hope to see you in the "active" column! For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · EdwardsBot ( talk) 02:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, INic! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently being revived. Your help would be appreciated! To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. The role call will end May 31; please move your name now if you are still interested. For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · MonoBot 04:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear iNic, could you please email me pdf's of the main articles cited on the two envelopes problem page? gill@math.leidenuniv.nl (if you do have them yourself).
I will post my analysis (currently written out on my talk page on wikipedia) on my university home page [ [4]] and after I've had some feedback, also post this as a short article on arXiv.org
I'll probably add a literature survey and critique.
Then any editor who finds the material useful and notable can refer to it.
Your comments on the content are welcome.
Thanks in advance. Richard Gill ( talk) 06:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, I think I was able to collect just about all the sources, though as Syverson (2010) says "Indeed if there is anything inherently unbounded about the two-envelope paradox, it is that each search will uncover at least one more reference."
Are you still interested in the article? I just rewrote the "non-probabilistic" section, after some deep study of many papers in logic and philosophy. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Tell me what you think needs to be sourced and I'll give you references. Sure some of my texts are hard to understand. They shouldn't be REMoved, they should be IMPRoved. (You can understand them, I hope? If not, tell me, and I'll try to explain, and once you've understood, you'll be able to improve. Collaborative editing. Always make the good faith assumption. Just deleting is not constructive; and it exhibits bad faith in the other's motives).
There are at least three completely different two envelope problems. With and without opening the first envelope, with and without probability. They all have very easy solutions, in their own terms. And they have different solutions for readers with different backgrounds. Probabilists, economists, logicians all see different issues. A layperson can "defuse" the paradox (es) by common sense, but is not equipped to even see what the different academics are on about. Should the layman care? Probably not. Should the academic professional care that the layman doesn'tcare? Probably not. The literature is vaste and complex. A big challenge to an encyopediist who has to write both for laypersons and for *all* the academic communities. Solution: collaborative editing. It requires that *all *participants recogniise the "relativity" and hence incompleteness of their own point if view Richard Gill ( talk) 08:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
iNic, will you please provide me with sources which explain why TEP is a philosophical problem. It seems to me TEP is a problem about logic and logic lies at the basis of both philosophy and mathematics.
Please will you also tell me if you are a philosopher or a logician yourself. I'm interested to understand why you think that Schwitzgebel and Dever is such a brilliant philosophy paper (written by two philosophy PhD students about a problem outside of their specialist fields). Richard Gill ( talk) 16:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please will you also tell me if you are aware of any secondary or tertiary sources about TEP (eg University undergraduate texts) in philosophy. There do exist such sources in mathematics, e.g. Cox's book on inference (though some would call this a graduate text, not undergraduate). Research articles are primary sources according to wikipedia rules which you so strongly adhere to. We are not allowed to write articles whose reliable sources are original research articles. This rules out almost all of the literature on TEP. The rest consists of blogs by amateurs. That is also not a reliable source for an academic subject. The main message for the layman should be that original TEP and Smullyan's TEP are examples of faulty logical reasoning caused by using the same symbol (or verbal description) to stand for different things at the same time. This is the executive summary of almost all the articles I have studied so far, by the way. Then TEP with opened envelope belongs to probability and decision theory and is useful in the classroom for showing the strange things that happen with infinite expectation values. You do *not* expect an infinite expectation because you never live long enough. You are always disappointed. In the long run you are dead (Keynes). That's it. That's the executive summary of the decision theoretic / statistical literature on this topic. I will write a survey paper containing no original research and not promoting any personal point of view, and then at last we will have a good secondary source for the wikipedia article.
I think that Falk's paper constitutes a secondary source. She analyses TEP from the point of view of teaching probability. Her executive summary is the same as what I just mentioned: examples of faulty logical reasoning caused by using the same symbol (or verbal description) to stand for different things at the same time. Don't worry, almost all of the philosophers say the same thing, but of course want to say it in a subtly different way from earlier authors, since their job is to publish papers in which they nit-pick in previously published papers.
I'm participating in a philosophy conference tomorrow at which several authors of TEP papers are present. That will be interesting. Richard Gill ( talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you intend to call me a vandal? " rvv" means revert vandalism, as opposed to a garden-variety revert (rv).-- Father Goose ( talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Food for thought! Richard Gill ( talk) 10:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
Dear iNic, please note the following exchange on Martin's two envelopes sub-talk page:
Elsewhere you wrote:
You are saying that if the money was alien, not only would we not know the actual worth of the amounts in the two envelopes, we wouldn't even know which envelope contained the larger amount. This situation is easily solved by thinking about utility. Since our knowledge about the currency is zero our expected utility for the amount in either envelope is the same.
You say that TEP is not confined to the topology of the real line. I disagree. It depends only on the ordering of the real line, and our ability to map the ordering monotonely to utility. My unified solution applies to all known variants. It also applies to alien currencies whose value is not known (but whose ordering is known) and to totally alien currencies - those whose ordering is not known. If you have got to choose an envelope before you get to learn about the currency, then the appropriate utility to use is not the actual but unknown utilities of the two amounts of alien money (which you would only know if the inscriptions on the coins were explained to you, and the exchange rate was fixed) but the expected utility of the amounts before getting this information. By ignorance and symmetry the expected utilities of two completely alien amounts of money, even whose ordering is unknown, is equal. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
iNic, in a personal email you asked for my present reaction to one of your ideas above. We had a discussion here, which stopped with your comment posted at 11:49, 29 November 2011. Sorry I did not respond earlier. Here is a fresh answer: Ah, so you suggest to rephrase the problem. I will make a start. Maybe you can fill in the two bits I left empty, marked X and Y:
We have two envelopes. They each contain a certificate. Each will lead to some outcome, not divulged. All we know is that one is preferable to the other and that we will only know which is which at some later date. Our friends will admire us if we pick the right envelope. If we pick the wrong envelope we will be thought a fool. We must make a choice, now. We reason to ourselves, since we know nothing but must pick one, we can only pick at random. We do so. We are now holding one envelope. The devil now says: you made your choice, but now I’m changing the rules. I give you the opportunity to switch. After you have decided to switch or not (and after the switch has been performed, if that was your choice) I will tell you, and all the world, which envelope you have. I now reason ...X... and decide it is wiser to stick to my first choice. But I realise I can also reason ...Y... and then it would be wiser to switch.
iNic: I think it is *your* task to come up with those two “reasonings” (the ones marked X and Y) so that we have a new paradox. And once we have a paradox we can discuss its resolution.
I sense that you might be on to something interesting connected to Buddhism or to the thinking of Wittgenstein or to artificial intelligence, ie to a paradox of consciousness and the mind-brain problem. Or to exchangability in physics, which leads to the great issues in quantum mechanics and the question, what is reality. Or both. Does reality exist, or is there only information? There is nothing but the information which we have. We are agents and have the possibility to gain information but we won’t know what we have gained till after we have gained it. This is actually simply solipcism, which is a rude word in philosophy, but it stands for a perfectly reasonable intellectual position to take. I heard a great talk recently where it was explained that all the paradoxes of quantum entanglement go back to the notion of “identical particles”. Once you accept that a particle here and another far away are identical, and you assume quantum mechanics, you generate spooky action at a distance and the interrelatedness of all things and the Schrödinger cat problem... Richard Gill ( talk) 12:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Two envelopes problem/sources, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a
mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
DASHBot (
talk)
06:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You have been warned about the harassment you made against me in talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two_envelopes_problem#The_full_basis_of_the_argument_to_switch_must_be_made_clear_at_some_point Specifically, you intentionaly exposed my work organisation. 89.31.176.13 ( talk) 06:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have oversighted that information, and all the subsequent edits up to my removal of same. Since you have been editing for about as long as I have and have no apparent issues, I'm assuming that you were just unaware that posting information which could be used to identify an IP user's workplace when the edits aren't about their employer is a violation of the outing policy. So, you do now. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
User INic has threatened me twice that I would be blocked if I continue to revert his deletions. The incident has happened in the revision summary of the following history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Two_envelopes_problem&action=history on 14:28, 14 October 2014 and on 19:18, 2 October 2014. The reason provided by INic is the 3RR rule which clearly doesn't apply to my case because I revert his deletions at most one time per day. I believe that he is doing that on purpose to frighten me and to stop me from reverting his deletions. I believe that this case is also a harassment - threat as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats Caramella1 ( talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Magioladitis:.
First, you did not follow the instructions when applying {{
bots}}, specifically, Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community
. Vast majority of the time the template doesn't need to be applied and a solution can be worked out.
Second, using <br>
for spacing goes against
html standards. It also can cause problems with accessibility. Looking at how other math equations look on the page, using the two br tags makes it look out of place... way too much vertical blank space compared to the other equations.
What Yobot did is also wrong. Not only does it look way, way wrong, it also blows accessibility out of the water.
I've added the {{ ordered list}} template while using the ':' wiki notation. The colon not only indents but applies the right amount of vertical space. The ordered list template makes is accessibility sound when using a colon or br tag. Personally, I like the look of it being indented... it looks better and is like the other big equations on the article. Using a br tag instead of a colon makes it look claustrophobic. If you have questions or concerns, please ping me. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for fixing this. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Two envelopes problem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Giant Snowman 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
INic, you have reverted again even after you have been warned. Please stop. Please try to understand how the BRD-cycle works. Caramella1 ( talk) 10:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Giant Snowman 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
INic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is a consensus among all other editors to keep the disputed section off the page. I will let other editors remove this section in the future.
Accept reason:
Following the discussion on this page, I've unblocked your account. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk)
01:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)INic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
These allegations are ridiculous, and of course totally false. However, this is not the first time this user has made false allegations against me so I'm not surprised.
Accept reason:
Following the checkuser of your account, it seems that you are not the same user as Perswapish. PhilKnight ( talk) 09:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have added my support to Perswapish's latest unblock request. You might like to add yours. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 00:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, INic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, INic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I made an edit to Two envelopes problem based on a problem I identified on how readers would be mislead. I justified this change on Talk:Two envelopes problem. While my talk page thread necessarily discusses details of the paradox, I'm not making an argument about the problem specifically; it identifies how the article doesn't correctly summarize the sources, and my justification of the edit shouldn't be removed from the talk page. If you're going to revert the change then please to provide sources for the text that's on there. The current paragraph has no sources and is not encyclopedic. Awwright ( talk) 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)