This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
So now the history links to those sections don't work. You didn't think you could do something that profound without a complaint did you Rick ;) hydnjo ( talk) 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I did respond, hopefully in the proper way. Nijdam ( talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:BDInDecade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you were watching the bot's talk page, so just a heads-up: [1]. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick, what you mention is a common problem with mediations, on Wikipedia and (I suspect) other participation-sporadic online forums. I used to ask all participants for opening statements but that inevitably resulted in delays or difficulties in communicating due to too much enthusiastic opining followed up long pauses of activity. But thanks for notifying me that there are fairly active contributors watching, and I will ramp up accordingly. Andrevan @ 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I was in Colorado for a few days for a conference for work. But I will be getting back to it this week. Andrevan @ 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Rick, I wish I had something to say. Technically, Glkanter's comment, while not particularly helpful, isn't against any policy. I don't think comments like that are the norm for this dispute and I don't see that sort of issue impeding progress, and anyway it's not the mediator's place to admonish unhelpful comments, especially when everyone in this dispute is pretty mild and well-behaved. I'd like to give the mediation another shot so look for that in a few days to a week. Andrevan @ 23:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick,
can I ask you to have a look at
WP:Bot requests#Admin category cleanup drive please?
Thanks,
Amalthea 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed the name to just Denver since the mention that is a city and county is mentioned several times in the first, second sections of the article. See: San Francisco. But, if im wrong sorry for the mix-up! LabradorLover456 ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for passing on that information; sorry for the mix up! LabradorLover456 ( talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Rick Bot is doing something weird at Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010. There are several duplicates of the same red link topic. Gary King ( talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering what to do if I want to edit your page at User:Rick Block/MH solution. Should I just edit it there or should I copy it somewhere else, like my user page, first? Thanks! Colincbn ( talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This is copied from Gill110951's talk page
In reading and participating in the MHP discussion I have learned more about probability then I ever intended, or thought possible. I must say it has been an interesting ride. I also noticed that Rick brought up Game Theory in the posts above. That reminded me that I wanted to ask someone knowledgeable about the bit under 'Variants' that says "The host is rewarded whenever the contestant incorrectly switches or incorrectly stays = Switching wins 1/2 the time at the Nash equilibrium". This seems to imply that if the producers want to make sure the contestant never gets a 2/3 chance to win the car all they have to do is give Monty a cookie if the contestant chooses wrong. Which is counter intuitive to say the least. Can you explain this in more detail? Thanks, Colincbn ( talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the conversation got sidetracked after this and I still have not been able to figure out this bit. Is this a mistake or will any reward suffice to change the probability to 1/2? Colincbn ( talk) 07:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the objection to putting the conditional, Morgan, and Bayesian stuff in a separate section and simply linking it with a text anchor from the "simple" explanation? Andrevan @ 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Rick, hi:
I wonder why you have removed my external link. This is a good and relevant demonstration that highlights often overlooked approach to solving Monty Hall's problem. There are also further links that could be of interest to the wikipedia audience. The link is certainly no less deserving than the ones you already have there. Do not you object to having Wolfram's Demostration Project linked from every possible page? Is it less spam than the link I posted?
With best wishes, Alexander Bogomolny ( 69.142.104.34 ( talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
Rick, I have requested that the MedCom chair reassign the case or refer it to Arbitration. I apologize that I was unable to make meaningful progress. I wish you luck with the next step. Andrevan @ 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have unbolded my text. I disagree with your decision. The text that I highlighted is extremely important and should be easily visible to all users upon looking at the page Monty Hall Problem. Thanks! Gabithefirst ( talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Rick, please consider that this is not "three prisoners" etc., but that this is the MHP. And in the MHP the simple solution (2/3 by switching) is always "correct". Just in case that additional info is revealed, the answer can become "closer", so from 2/3 to either 1/2 or to 1 (3/3), just a "closer" result. So, what the MHP is concerned, the "simple solution" can be said "not to be correct enough", never to be "not correct at all". It is just confusing and not helpful if a statement, treating quite another issue, is cited in the MHP without pointer/advice. Confusion? Please give me your view of what is helpful and what isn't. Regards, -- Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick, I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the MH mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to some new mediation page contributions by me, on my own talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 ( talk) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Rick,
Since I'm a mathematician I am dedicated to the Truth and if I see someone screwing up elementary maths or logic on Wikipedia, I'll let them know. Of course I can't do other than give way to what normal Wikipedia procedures result in, so I don't always have to get my way. If I don't, then either I was wrong or I did a bad job at getting my point across. Both very useful learning experiences (defeats teach you much more than victories, both about yourself and about "the enemy").
Now, mathematical truth can be checked by computer programs. But we are not discussing mathematical truth here at all, when talking about the MHPP. The transition from a verbal problem sketch to a mathematization is much harder. And there almost never is a unique good translation, not if the problem is actually interesting, and that is exactly why we're all here, because MHP *is* interesting. Moreover, anyone who makes the transition should also think about what they get when they follow the reverse track. The real world meaning of the conclusions depends on the real world meaning of the assumptions.Moreover, anyone who makes the transition and gets some conclusions is well advised to spend a little thought on the question, whether they could have got the same conclusions for less assumptions. ...
On a more personal note, but trying to be constructive. Your references about how the article was before some people whose points of view you apparently don't appreciate started messing with it come across to me as part of the problem, not part of the solution. No doubt you feel the same in reverse about me, no hard feelings mate.
Now, since I'm not American I can safely disagree with you about God, but I'll take Motherhood and Apple Pie, so how about we all get friendly by agreeing on the Motherhood and Apple Pie first? I think that's what mediation is about. It's about defusing conflicts, not about escalating them.
An aside, did you know that I was co-originator of The Quantum MHP and wrote it with a bunch of guys mostly during a delightful long bar discussion about what should be The Quantum MHP?
Finally, I do strongly disagree with all the hidden assumptions implied by your (1) and (2). I think that in this mediation we are letting someone else help us come to consensus first on the problems to be resolved, and then secondly to let us happily resolve them once we have agreed on what we disagree on. You are welcome to your Opinion what are The Problems but it does come across like you're trying to dictate them to us.
I'd love to discuss what I see as the hidden assumptions inside your (1) and (2). In public, semi-private or in private as you like.
You obviously have a different approach from mine. Great, maybe our approaches are complementary! As a professional mathematician both pure and applied my professional approach is first to determine The Truth. In my restricted field, I'm supposed to be an expert on that. Next, on Wikipedia, where my professional expertise is relevant, I try to inform other editors what I think it tells us. Normally, where there is a will there is a way, and there is typically absolutely no conflict between the absolutely sound and naturally binding Policies of Wikipedia and The Truth. It's like in law, and it's like in science, we work in a multi-agent field where we need social rules which are supposed to guide us in our search for justice, scientific knowledge, etc and where the social rules are designed to avoid contradiction between manifest truth and manifest justice and the outcome of the social process. Since otherwise the outcome of the social process is not secure because it causes more problems than it delivers. However just as in Law and in Science as in all social enterprises, some people are good at using the rules of the game not to deliver the intended collectively wanted end-product but to further their own personal agendas. I am not accusing you of this, it just comes across as if that is your method, and that in the long run wouldn't actually further your personal agenda, if it was true, anyway? Get my meaning? It's a bit complex.sorry.
Yours, Richard Gill110951 ( talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at [ [2]]
There you will find out why the answer is "2/3" or "switch", as you like, and the method is unconditional, but the assumptions are NOT what some people like to call the standard assumptions, but the result is much much better, since much more useful in practice, much more often applicable, and just as easy to argue, whether formally or informally. And if you like you can refine or complete it, if you like, by proving that 2/3 is the best answer and this is the best strategy. Hellpimp showed us the way but no-one noticed. Now the economists and game theorists know all this too and have frequently published on it so there is no problem backing it up with reliable sources. Moreover it is such a clean and different simple argument that is "out there" I think it deserves some consideration. I am not talking about pushing it onto the MHP page in order to push my POV, I am talking about something which I think is worth thinking about, if one likes to think of oneself as an authority on MHP. Gill110951 ( talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's about (1) or (2) or both/neither. Here's why:
You wrote:
I propose the both/neither alternative. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the conditionalists will love. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the unconditionalists will love. Both those parties also seem to miss that there are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which fall in neither category, especially those that I one could label economical or opportunist or taking a higher view: it's the point that you don't just get the choice switch/stay but also the initial choice of door in the first place. Choose it uniformly at random and you are safe, you needn't make any "unwarranted" assumptions whatever.
OK I see this through the POV of a professional pure and applied mathematician. On the one hand, biased. On the other hand, trained and competent to spot holes in arguments, to spot structural relations between apparently different results. I have made an in depth study of the reliable sources.
Hence all we have to do is to adopt an NPOV. Now indeed there exists verifiably a controversy between the fundamentalists. And of course these guys make a lot of noise and get a lot of attention. But there is actually also a sound middle of the road in which everyone gets there due and by integrating the use of basic clear logical thinking and all the Wikipedia Policies there are, one can come to a great article. But not if you first insist on the wrong question being answered in favour of one or the other fundamentalist school. We want a NPOV, right? We also want to get the article back to being a justly great article again. It got a bit unbalanced and new guys elbowed in with new ideas. And the world turned round and Morgan et al retracted, Tsirelson exhibited some beautiful mathematical short cuts, some other people finally figured out what all the economists had been thinking about all these years...
vos Savant's words are "out there". They still stimulate original thought. Taking those words as describing informally a lay person's idea of a problem which needs to be mathematized to be solved, the professional mathematical scientist will also watch out that the chosen wording doesn't lead them into a narrow blind alley when the girl who posed the question would obviously have been more than delighted if her words had been reformulated a tiny bit and thereby making obvious what is the question you really want to ask. vos Savant asks: what should you do. I say: you will of course have thought a bit ahead. You have of course already noticed that you have TWO decision moments. You're focussing on the second but actually the first is equally important, let me tell you why ... Gill110951 ( talk) 10:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Noise music, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick, I hope all is well with you.
I saw you posted on David Tombe's user page. It seems he still thinks that the answer is 1/2 and not 2/3 though. I posted the "Bar-game MHP" sim that I ran with my sister in-law to try and give him a good way of seeing the problem clearly. I know the sim implies some things about what "the real MHP" is, but I am honestly not trying to convince him of one way of looking at it or another. I just think that the bar-sim is a fun way to show the math in a real-world setting.
I also think the fact that he read the article and still thinks the answer is 1/2 illustrates my view of why we should lead with simple explanations for non-mathematicians. But since the article is currently laid-out that way and he still missed the correct answer I don't really know if there is much more we can do. Any insights you might have would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Colincbn ( talk) 02:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, let me give this a shot:
1) how many times would you think the car ends up behind door 1? door 2? door 3?
2) how many times (out of all 300) would you think the host opens door 2? door 3?
3) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 1 if the host opens door 2? door 3?
4) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 2 if the host opens door 2? door 3?
5) thinking about your answers to #3 and #4, what is the probability of winning by switching if the host opens door 3?
So is my handling of this correct? I have to admit it took me awhile to get my brain around the specifics of this situation, but I'm pretty confident about my answers (I hope I'm not wrong). Colincbn ( talk) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
100 + 100 + 100 = 300 /\ /-----------/ \----------\ | | | | host opens: door 2 door 3 | | V V ___ + ___ + ___ = 150 ___ + ___ + ___ = 150
100 + 100 + 100 = 300 /\ /-----------/ \----------\ | | | | host opens: door 2 door 3 | | V V 50 + 0 + 100 = 150 50 + 100 + 0 = 150
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
1/6 + 0 + 1/3 = 1/2 or 1/6 + 1/3 + 0 = 1/2
1) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 2) 1/3 + (1/3 + 1/3) = 1 because ?? we know what the host does cannot affect door 1's chances 3) 1/3 + (2/3 + 0) = 1 because we know the probability of door 3 is 0
1) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 2) 1/6 + 1/3 + 0 = 1/2 these are the total probabilities assuming the host has opened door 3 3) 1/3 + 2/3 + 0 = 1 converting line 2 to conditional probabilities
Rick Block, your favored method of supporting the 2/3 - 1/3 solution (shown above) involves enumerating what happens in "X" plays of the game, is consistent with the big, bold banner that used to be at the top of the MHP talk page:
Getting back to your solution above, and many times previously, you have explained that most readers will be more comfortable with such an explanation, as opposed to the various simple solutions. David Tombe, for one, has disagreed with that idea recently. It's not really a statement of fact, anyways. I certainly don't think it's proven.
But then, at the conclusion (and throughout the narrative), you claim: "Line 3 ends up with the same values, but using reasons that are actually correct. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)"
So, now you're saying your method is not just easier to grasp, but the others are not 'actually correct'. Which is a conclusion that does not follow from your personal preference of solutions. You're saying there is only one 'correct' way to solve the problem. Your preferred way. Glkanter ( talk) 11:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a bit of an odd question. I'm looking to create a bot for a Wikia wiki and while I can find plenty of information about what goes into writing a script, I don't understand how they run. I certainly don't mean to bother you, but do you have to run your bot's scripts manually? Do they run from your own computer? How do you make sure it's on at the right time of day? Sorry if my questions don't make any sense. I appreciate your time. Thanks. -- 31stCenturyMatt ( talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot is already doing Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010 from pages like Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/September 2010. I was wondering if it could also be setup to run Wikipedia:Good topics promoted in 2010 from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/September 2010. Nergaal ( talk) 05:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/A proposed solution section. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Rick, are you sure that you want those formulas on the mediation page like you wrote them? The probability of A and B usually means the probability that A and B occur together. The probability of A given B usually means the probability of A given that B has occurred. And we have the conventional definition
In MHP we distinguish Prob( switching gives car) and Prob( switching gives car given initial choice of player and door opened by host). We can even write, by the law of total probability,
Gill110951 ( talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Rick Bot autoupdates redirects in the FA/FL promotion archives. That makes sense when an article is moved/renamed, but what about when articles are merged? The question relates to this edit. I think these lists are just used by you to generate WBFAN, so how are these counted should three merged FLs be counted as one current FL, three former FLs, one current and two former, or something else? (ALoan doesn't seem to be credited at all for these articles on WBFAN). Gimmetoo ( talk) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. I don't kno how I missed your other messages. I'll look in on the page and see what I can do. Will Beback talk 00:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick,
SandyGeorgia has asked me to alert you that your input is requested here. Cheers! — Kevin Myers 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Rick. I tried to fix this list, but as you can see, SandyGeorgia says that the bot will not recognize this change. She says that the old "montly logs" have to be corrected. Can you do it? The three FAs that are missing are: Her Majesty's Theatre, Thespis and W. S. Gilbert. In each case, I was one of the two most active editors who helped in the expansion of the article and in bringing it through peer reviews, GA and FA. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Rick, I'm trying to find out on which points editors do agree. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Starting points. Nijdam ( talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
So now the history links to those sections don't work. You didn't think you could do something that profound without a complaint did you Rick ;) hydnjo ( talk) 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I did respond, hopefully in the proper way. Nijdam ( talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:BDInDecade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you were watching the bot's talk page, so just a heads-up: [1]. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick, what you mention is a common problem with mediations, on Wikipedia and (I suspect) other participation-sporadic online forums. I used to ask all participants for opening statements but that inevitably resulted in delays or difficulties in communicating due to too much enthusiastic opining followed up long pauses of activity. But thanks for notifying me that there are fairly active contributors watching, and I will ramp up accordingly. Andrevan @ 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I was in Colorado for a few days for a conference for work. But I will be getting back to it this week. Andrevan @ 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Rick, I wish I had something to say. Technically, Glkanter's comment, while not particularly helpful, isn't against any policy. I don't think comments like that are the norm for this dispute and I don't see that sort of issue impeding progress, and anyway it's not the mediator's place to admonish unhelpful comments, especially when everyone in this dispute is pretty mild and well-behaved. I'd like to give the mediation another shot so look for that in a few days to a week. Andrevan @ 23:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick,
can I ask you to have a look at
WP:Bot requests#Admin category cleanup drive please?
Thanks,
Amalthea 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed the name to just Denver since the mention that is a city and county is mentioned several times in the first, second sections of the article. See: San Francisco. But, if im wrong sorry for the mix-up! LabradorLover456 ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for passing on that information; sorry for the mix up! LabradorLover456 ( talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Rick Bot is doing something weird at Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010. There are several duplicates of the same red link topic. Gary King ( talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering what to do if I want to edit your page at User:Rick Block/MH solution. Should I just edit it there or should I copy it somewhere else, like my user page, first? Thanks! Colincbn ( talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This is copied from Gill110951's talk page
In reading and participating in the MHP discussion I have learned more about probability then I ever intended, or thought possible. I must say it has been an interesting ride. I also noticed that Rick brought up Game Theory in the posts above. That reminded me that I wanted to ask someone knowledgeable about the bit under 'Variants' that says "The host is rewarded whenever the contestant incorrectly switches or incorrectly stays = Switching wins 1/2 the time at the Nash equilibrium". This seems to imply that if the producers want to make sure the contestant never gets a 2/3 chance to win the car all they have to do is give Monty a cookie if the contestant chooses wrong. Which is counter intuitive to say the least. Can you explain this in more detail? Thanks, Colincbn ( talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the conversation got sidetracked after this and I still have not been able to figure out this bit. Is this a mistake or will any reward suffice to change the probability to 1/2? Colincbn ( talk) 07:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the objection to putting the conditional, Morgan, and Bayesian stuff in a separate section and simply linking it with a text anchor from the "simple" explanation? Andrevan @ 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Rick, hi:
I wonder why you have removed my external link. This is a good and relevant demonstration that highlights often overlooked approach to solving Monty Hall's problem. There are also further links that could be of interest to the wikipedia audience. The link is certainly no less deserving than the ones you already have there. Do not you object to having Wolfram's Demostration Project linked from every possible page? Is it less spam than the link I posted?
With best wishes, Alexander Bogomolny ( 69.142.104.34 ( talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
Rick, I have requested that the MedCom chair reassign the case or refer it to Arbitration. I apologize that I was unable to make meaningful progress. I wish you luck with the next step. Andrevan @ 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have unbolded my text. I disagree with your decision. The text that I highlighted is extremely important and should be easily visible to all users upon looking at the page Monty Hall Problem. Thanks! Gabithefirst ( talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Rick, please consider that this is not "three prisoners" etc., but that this is the MHP. And in the MHP the simple solution (2/3 by switching) is always "correct". Just in case that additional info is revealed, the answer can become "closer", so from 2/3 to either 1/2 or to 1 (3/3), just a "closer" result. So, what the MHP is concerned, the "simple solution" can be said "not to be correct enough", never to be "not correct at all". It is just confusing and not helpful if a statement, treating quite another issue, is cited in the MHP without pointer/advice. Confusion? Please give me your view of what is helpful and what isn't. Regards, -- Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick, I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the MH mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to some new mediation page contributions by me, on my own talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 ( talk) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Rick,
Since I'm a mathematician I am dedicated to the Truth and if I see someone screwing up elementary maths or logic on Wikipedia, I'll let them know. Of course I can't do other than give way to what normal Wikipedia procedures result in, so I don't always have to get my way. If I don't, then either I was wrong or I did a bad job at getting my point across. Both very useful learning experiences (defeats teach you much more than victories, both about yourself and about "the enemy").
Now, mathematical truth can be checked by computer programs. But we are not discussing mathematical truth here at all, when talking about the MHPP. The transition from a verbal problem sketch to a mathematization is much harder. And there almost never is a unique good translation, not if the problem is actually interesting, and that is exactly why we're all here, because MHP *is* interesting. Moreover, anyone who makes the transition should also think about what they get when they follow the reverse track. The real world meaning of the conclusions depends on the real world meaning of the assumptions.Moreover, anyone who makes the transition and gets some conclusions is well advised to spend a little thought on the question, whether they could have got the same conclusions for less assumptions. ...
On a more personal note, but trying to be constructive. Your references about how the article was before some people whose points of view you apparently don't appreciate started messing with it come across to me as part of the problem, not part of the solution. No doubt you feel the same in reverse about me, no hard feelings mate.
Now, since I'm not American I can safely disagree with you about God, but I'll take Motherhood and Apple Pie, so how about we all get friendly by agreeing on the Motherhood and Apple Pie first? I think that's what mediation is about. It's about defusing conflicts, not about escalating them.
An aside, did you know that I was co-originator of The Quantum MHP and wrote it with a bunch of guys mostly during a delightful long bar discussion about what should be The Quantum MHP?
Finally, I do strongly disagree with all the hidden assumptions implied by your (1) and (2). I think that in this mediation we are letting someone else help us come to consensus first on the problems to be resolved, and then secondly to let us happily resolve them once we have agreed on what we disagree on. You are welcome to your Opinion what are The Problems but it does come across like you're trying to dictate them to us.
I'd love to discuss what I see as the hidden assumptions inside your (1) and (2). In public, semi-private or in private as you like.
You obviously have a different approach from mine. Great, maybe our approaches are complementary! As a professional mathematician both pure and applied my professional approach is first to determine The Truth. In my restricted field, I'm supposed to be an expert on that. Next, on Wikipedia, where my professional expertise is relevant, I try to inform other editors what I think it tells us. Normally, where there is a will there is a way, and there is typically absolutely no conflict between the absolutely sound and naturally binding Policies of Wikipedia and The Truth. It's like in law, and it's like in science, we work in a multi-agent field where we need social rules which are supposed to guide us in our search for justice, scientific knowledge, etc and where the social rules are designed to avoid contradiction between manifest truth and manifest justice and the outcome of the social process. Since otherwise the outcome of the social process is not secure because it causes more problems than it delivers. However just as in Law and in Science as in all social enterprises, some people are good at using the rules of the game not to deliver the intended collectively wanted end-product but to further their own personal agendas. I am not accusing you of this, it just comes across as if that is your method, and that in the long run wouldn't actually further your personal agenda, if it was true, anyway? Get my meaning? It's a bit complex.sorry.
Yours, Richard Gill110951 ( talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at [ [2]]
There you will find out why the answer is "2/3" or "switch", as you like, and the method is unconditional, but the assumptions are NOT what some people like to call the standard assumptions, but the result is much much better, since much more useful in practice, much more often applicable, and just as easy to argue, whether formally or informally. And if you like you can refine or complete it, if you like, by proving that 2/3 is the best answer and this is the best strategy. Hellpimp showed us the way but no-one noticed. Now the economists and game theorists know all this too and have frequently published on it so there is no problem backing it up with reliable sources. Moreover it is such a clean and different simple argument that is "out there" I think it deserves some consideration. I am not talking about pushing it onto the MHP page in order to push my POV, I am talking about something which I think is worth thinking about, if one likes to think of oneself as an authority on MHP. Gill110951 ( talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's about (1) or (2) or both/neither. Here's why:
You wrote:
I propose the both/neither alternative. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the conditionalists will love. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the unconditionalists will love. Both those parties also seem to miss that there are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which fall in neither category, especially those that I one could label economical or opportunist or taking a higher view: it's the point that you don't just get the choice switch/stay but also the initial choice of door in the first place. Choose it uniformly at random and you are safe, you needn't make any "unwarranted" assumptions whatever.
OK I see this through the POV of a professional pure and applied mathematician. On the one hand, biased. On the other hand, trained and competent to spot holes in arguments, to spot structural relations between apparently different results. I have made an in depth study of the reliable sources.
Hence all we have to do is to adopt an NPOV. Now indeed there exists verifiably a controversy between the fundamentalists. And of course these guys make a lot of noise and get a lot of attention. But there is actually also a sound middle of the road in which everyone gets there due and by integrating the use of basic clear logical thinking and all the Wikipedia Policies there are, one can come to a great article. But not if you first insist on the wrong question being answered in favour of one or the other fundamentalist school. We want a NPOV, right? We also want to get the article back to being a justly great article again. It got a bit unbalanced and new guys elbowed in with new ideas. And the world turned round and Morgan et al retracted, Tsirelson exhibited some beautiful mathematical short cuts, some other people finally figured out what all the economists had been thinking about all these years...
vos Savant's words are "out there". They still stimulate original thought. Taking those words as describing informally a lay person's idea of a problem which needs to be mathematized to be solved, the professional mathematical scientist will also watch out that the chosen wording doesn't lead them into a narrow blind alley when the girl who posed the question would obviously have been more than delighted if her words had been reformulated a tiny bit and thereby making obvious what is the question you really want to ask. vos Savant asks: what should you do. I say: you will of course have thought a bit ahead. You have of course already noticed that you have TWO decision moments. You're focussing on the second but actually the first is equally important, let me tell you why ... Gill110951 ( talk) 10:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Noise music, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick, I hope all is well with you.
I saw you posted on David Tombe's user page. It seems he still thinks that the answer is 1/2 and not 2/3 though. I posted the "Bar-game MHP" sim that I ran with my sister in-law to try and give him a good way of seeing the problem clearly. I know the sim implies some things about what "the real MHP" is, but I am honestly not trying to convince him of one way of looking at it or another. I just think that the bar-sim is a fun way to show the math in a real-world setting.
I also think the fact that he read the article and still thinks the answer is 1/2 illustrates my view of why we should lead with simple explanations for non-mathematicians. But since the article is currently laid-out that way and he still missed the correct answer I don't really know if there is much more we can do. Any insights you might have would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Colincbn ( talk) 02:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, let me give this a shot:
1) how many times would you think the car ends up behind door 1? door 2? door 3?
2) how many times (out of all 300) would you think the host opens door 2? door 3?
3) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 1 if the host opens door 2? door 3?
4) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 2 if the host opens door 2? door 3?
5) thinking about your answers to #3 and #4, what is the probability of winning by switching if the host opens door 3?
So is my handling of this correct? I have to admit it took me awhile to get my brain around the specifics of this situation, but I'm pretty confident about my answers (I hope I'm not wrong). Colincbn ( talk) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
100 + 100 + 100 = 300 /\ /-----------/ \----------\ | | | | host opens: door 2 door 3 | | V V ___ + ___ + ___ = 150 ___ + ___ + ___ = 150
100 + 100 + 100 = 300 /\ /-----------/ \----------\ | | | | host opens: door 2 door 3 | | V V 50 + 0 + 100 = 150 50 + 100 + 0 = 150
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
1/6 + 0 + 1/3 = 1/2 or 1/6 + 1/3 + 0 = 1/2
1) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 2) 1/3 + (1/3 + 1/3) = 1 because ?? we know what the host does cannot affect door 1's chances 3) 1/3 + (2/3 + 0) = 1 because we know the probability of door 3 is 0
1) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 2) 1/6 + 1/3 + 0 = 1/2 these are the total probabilities assuming the host has opened door 3 3) 1/3 + 2/3 + 0 = 1 converting line 2 to conditional probabilities
Rick Block, your favored method of supporting the 2/3 - 1/3 solution (shown above) involves enumerating what happens in "X" plays of the game, is consistent with the big, bold banner that used to be at the top of the MHP talk page:
Getting back to your solution above, and many times previously, you have explained that most readers will be more comfortable with such an explanation, as opposed to the various simple solutions. David Tombe, for one, has disagreed with that idea recently. It's not really a statement of fact, anyways. I certainly don't think it's proven.
But then, at the conclusion (and throughout the narrative), you claim: "Line 3 ends up with the same values, but using reasons that are actually correct. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)"
So, now you're saying your method is not just easier to grasp, but the others are not 'actually correct'. Which is a conclusion that does not follow from your personal preference of solutions. You're saying there is only one 'correct' way to solve the problem. Your preferred way. Glkanter ( talk) 11:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a bit of an odd question. I'm looking to create a bot for a Wikia wiki and while I can find plenty of information about what goes into writing a script, I don't understand how they run. I certainly don't mean to bother you, but do you have to run your bot's scripts manually? Do they run from your own computer? How do you make sure it's on at the right time of day? Sorry if my questions don't make any sense. I appreciate your time. Thanks. -- 31stCenturyMatt ( talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot is already doing Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010 from pages like Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/September 2010. I was wondering if it could also be setup to run Wikipedia:Good topics promoted in 2010 from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/September 2010. Nergaal ( talk) 05:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/A proposed solution section. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Rick, are you sure that you want those formulas on the mediation page like you wrote them? The probability of A and B usually means the probability that A and B occur together. The probability of A given B usually means the probability of A given that B has occurred. And we have the conventional definition
In MHP we distinguish Prob( switching gives car) and Prob( switching gives car given initial choice of player and door opened by host). We can even write, by the law of total probability,
Gill110951 ( talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Rick Bot autoupdates redirects in the FA/FL promotion archives. That makes sense when an article is moved/renamed, but what about when articles are merged? The question relates to this edit. I think these lists are just used by you to generate WBFAN, so how are these counted should three merged FLs be counted as one current FL, three former FLs, one current and two former, or something else? (ALoan doesn't seem to be credited at all for these articles on WBFAN). Gimmetoo ( talk) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. I don't kno how I missed your other messages. I'll look in on the page and see what I can do. Will Beback talk 00:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick,
SandyGeorgia has asked me to alert you that your input is requested here. Cheers! — Kevin Myers 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Rick. I tried to fix this list, but as you can see, SandyGeorgia says that the bot will not recognize this change. She says that the old "montly logs" have to be corrected. Can you do it? The three FAs that are missing are: Her Majesty's Theatre, Thespis and W. S. Gilbert. In each case, I was one of the two most active editors who helped in the expansion of the article and in bringing it through peer reviews, GA and FA. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Rick, I'm trying to find out on which points editors do agree. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Starting points. Nijdam ( talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)