Misplaced Pages

If we consider the version of the problem where the player looks in their envelope before making their decision, then A becomes a simple constant. Suppose the player sees £100 in their envelope. How do you argue against the statement "Thus the other envelope contains £200 with probability 1/2 and £50 with probability 1/2"? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The value (in £ e.g.) is irrelevant for the mathematical problem, it's just of relevance for philosophers who found not £200, but one nickel only, or a cheque of an incredible large amount of hundreds of million £. As to mathematics, the actual amount in $ or € is irrelevant, and the fragmentary statement: "Thus the other envelope contains £200 with probability 1/2 and £50 with probability 1/2" is an ignoratio elenchi. Such fragment is pure nonsense (did you draw those two designs?), because for the standard version, the "X-Version" you only can guess to have actually picked either the LARGE end:

• LARGE 2/3 ------versus------small 1/3    or to have picked the small end:
• small 1/3------vs.------LARGE 2/3.

Only after having considered WHICH end you actually might have picked, you can start to reason: In case I picked the small amount, then the other envelope will contain twice the small amount. And if I actually picked the large amount, then the other envelope contains the LARGE/2 amount. Using one single variable called A for both values, for the "small left end" you might have picked AND for the "LARGE left end" that you might have picked, is pure nonsense in maths. Please help to express this "more perspicuous". Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are now moving towards a correct resolution that we already have in the article, which is that the statement "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2" is not true for every value that might be in the initial envelope. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Too bad, I'm really disappointed. The article is a mess. As to the standard version and as to maths, envelopes A and B are equally likely to hold the small amount of 1/3, and equally likely also to hold the large amount of 2/3, no difference. Period. Irrespective of the actual size of "amount" in envelope A. And yes, mathematically this is valid for any actual value of A.

Only if envelope A contains a penny only or if A contains a very large amount, philosophers will conclude that it is better to switch resp. to stay.

As to maths, the "value of envelope A" is completely irrelevant.

You are quoting an incorrect statement. You say 'that the statement "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2" is not true for every value that might be in the initial envelope.'

This is not correct, because the "absolute amount of envelope "A" is mathematically irrelevant. Mathematically the other envelope contains with exact probability 1/2 the double contents of envelope A, irrelevant of the "absolute value of A", namely ALWAYS if A is 1/3 of the total amount, and therefore the smaller of both, true for EVERY value of envelope A. And vice versa. Mathematically the probability is ALWAYS 1/2, always 1/2. That does never depend on the "actual value" of A. What matters is whether A actually holds 1/3, because only if A actually is only 1/3, then this small amount can be doubled, or whether A actually is 2/3, because only in that case this large amount A can be halved, otherwise not. Probability 1:1, probability does not depend on the "absolute value" of A. And in both cases size of difference will be exactly the same: (+/-) 1/3 of the total value.

IMO it is misleading to start the article with the false arguments and the incorrect formula

${\displaystyle {1 \over 2}(2A)+{1 \over 2}\left({A \over 2}\right)={5 \over 4}}$   without simultaneously showing the correct arguments and the correct formula:

${\displaystyle {1 \over 2}(2a)+{1 \over 2}\left({A \over 2}\right)=1:1}$.

Otherwise the rest of the article will remain an incomprehensible mess. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you have now gone back to giving an argument why you should not swap. We all know you should not swap and that the argument given is misleading becuase it leads you to the view that you should swap. To resolve the paradox you need to pinpoint exactly where the problem lies in the argument for swapping given. It is no use just saying that it leads to a contradiction, that is the whole point of the puzzle; to present an argument that leads to a contradiction.

The trouble with the new paper is that it does not show where the error lies. If you enhance it, as you have done, that is not only OR but it brings it into line with existing resolutions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So you still didn't read what I say, it's what the literature says (e.g. Léo Gerville-Réache, Bruss (1996), Bartz (in German only), Bliss, Federico O'Reilly, Tom Loredo or Tom Loredo and many many others). The statement "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2" is just only an incomplete fragment that perforce leads to driveling false conclusions. "This mistake is adding apples and oranges" as mentioned by Schwitzgebel and Dever.

(I guess you still didn't draw those two figures.) The correct approach: firstly, you have to consider that there exists the total amount of both envelopes. For the standard version, in 50% you have EITHER picked the smaller one: 1/3, or in the other 50% you have picked the larger one: 2/3. Now the correct consideration is (above I have asked you 'Please help to express this "more perspicuous"'):

• in 50% I will have picked the small amount (a), and if so, the other envelope contains 2*small (B), but having picked
• in 50% the large amount (A), then the other envelope contains large/2 (b).

For the standard version, "2A or A/2" is a furtive nonsensical false conclusion, just to lead us up the garden path. A false result, due to incomplete fragmentary reasoning. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerhard, your two links seem not to work. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The picture: Standard version and Nalebuff's Ali Baba variant. Regards, Gerhard --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your picture but it does not explain the error in the given line of reasoning.

You don't? This discussion lasts already for years, now. The cryptic article should clearly say what the literature says. Ruma Falk e.g. says on page 19 "Fault finding":  "This reasoning is faulty. The fault lies in the formulation. Because the other envelope contains the double amount ONLY THEN, IF mine actually holds the smaller amount, and vice versa the other envelope contains half of mine ONLY THEN, IF, my envelope actually holds the large amount. So each term in formula item 7 represents another value, but both terms are denominated by A. As per Rawlings (1994, p.100) this means committing the cardinal sin of a double seizure of an algebraic variable."  IMHO this error should be shown as early as possible, and as clearly as possible, in a comprehensive way. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your Léo Gerville-Réache link is quite extraordinary. It is an arXiv preprint directly addressing a Misplaced Pages article. Presumably the author is not aware that WP articles can be edited by anyone, including himself, and therefore the contents is subject to arbitrary change.

Federico O'Reilly would appear to be an unpublished private paper written by an academic whilst on leave and Loredo is a paper on a the staff section of an academic site. Unfortynately, I cannot read German.

Richard Gill has contributed to this article and has a good understanding of the published papers. I will try to contact him to see if he can help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

unproductive Talk page discussion

about this, see my note to albinoferret here: User_talk:AlbinoFerret#TPG. there are lots of sources that talk about risks; society (regulators, doctors, other folks) have a legitimate interest in considering risks of new technologies. instead of discussing what weight to give sources in the article (very legitimate Talk page discussion), albino accused other editors of soapboxing/speculating/scaremongering. that is not legitimate and worse, poisons the discussion and leaves no way to respond. on top of that he seemed to be claiming that we should the article based on what "users want". that is not how we structure articles - there is no basis for that in policy or guideline. there was literally nothing i could write back to him other than what i did. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten one basic policy of WP, which is that it is intended to be an encyclopedia not a WP:soapbox. That to me would seem to be his main point. You will often find me pursuing that point too. Using WP as a vehicle to support or oppose some great principle or right some great wrong is not its main purpose.

As you know, I gave up editing the BP article not because I am in any way a BP supporter but because it had been turned into a vehicle for attacking BP. This attitude is one of the most serious threats to the future and integrity of WP. It occurs regularly on a large scale (as in BP) and on a much smaller scale (for example an article on a US fraternity); someone wants to complain or make a point and they think it is OK to abuse WP to get publicity for their opinion.

AlbinoFerret wrote , ' An Encyclopedia is about information, not guesses, possibilities and worries'.

Exactly correct.

'What the health section has t is o much of to me a lot of speculation looking 5 years down the road before the evidence presents itself. Its scare tactics'.

Scare tactics (even if the threat turns out to be true) is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.

'But construction, and history is not speculation but about concrete things and developments. It appeals to people looking at the device, which is what the articles name implies should be its focus'.

In other words the article should be about the subject in its title.

'There is a large and growing community of users who have already made up their minds on the health aspects of them and has decided to use them. Writing to the concerns of the health community, which for the most part are not users has me concerned on the direction of the article'.

Our audience includes ES users who may want to know more that that ES will kill them (if indeed that is so).

'Other editors have even been against splitting the health section out to a article devoted to the health issues. This screams of not wanting to inform, but wanting a soapbox where they can force their views up front'.

No personal attacks here, just a comment on the direction that some editors seem to be taking. Let us keep it encyclopedic; this is, after all, an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

whew. you completely avoided my point that instead of discussing sources albino personalized it to choices other editors were making. this is destructive and ends conversation. we discuss content, not contributors.' we base articles on what reliable sources say, not on what editors think readers want to read. if you or other editors have ideas about WEIGHT, 'you discuss your ideas about WEIGHT, not other editors. and again, there are a shitload of reliable sources that discuss the risks of e-cigs. institutions that make society go have a legitimate interest in discussing and understanding new technologies that become widespread. sometimes those institutions help new technologies go (internet) sometime they try to stop them (crack cocaine) and sometimes they seek to regulate them (fracking, e-cigs). that is entirely legit. discussing risks is not "scare tactics". one can argue about weight sure. but again that discussion comes down to what you or other editors think weight should be - NOT what other editors think weight should be. WE DISCUSS CONTENT, NOT CONTRIBUTORS. period. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

SHOUTING does not make you right and is rather uncivil. I have included all of the pertinent contributions from AlbinoFerret, with my comments, above and there are no comments at all about other editors, only about the editing of the article in general. In fact, your comments, addressed to individual editors, are more against WP rules than anything that AlbinoFerret has written.

We can discuss what we like. There are no restrictions on what may be discussed on the talk pages (unless they are personal attacks or other banned comments). Our aim is to write an encyclopedia and sources do not tell us how to do that, that is decided by civil discussion on the talk pages about whatever is needed to improve WP.

No one is saying that stating known risks (supported by reliable sources) is scare tactics, only that the way they are currently presented (by editors in general) is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Monty Hall problem) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Uses of radioactivity in oil and gas wells page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Martin, Regarding the discussion on the Maxwell talk page, I can see now that you are dealing with an editor who has an agenda to ban the word British, and who is willing to edit on the main article against a consensus. An admin called Dave Souza agrees with you but says on his talk page that he hasn't got time to go into this. I suggest that you take the matter to some kind of opinion forum. The question needs to be asked in general terms "Does the nationality field in the info box refer to sovereign nationality?". If this is not tackled generally, the Scottish nationalists and the 'ban the word British' groups will systematically remove the word 'British' from all articles. As regards that essay which was produced as guidelines, it is total piffle, written by somebody who wants to ban the word British. The editor FF-UK is very keen to close the discussion down on the Maxwell talk page, but I suggest that it is only temporarily adjourned rather than closed down, until an opinion forum is consulted. I can't see why anybody other than an anti-British person would try to argue that nationality refers to sovereign nationality except when that nationality is British. 86.145.98.85 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)