User talk:Martin Hogbin/Archive0

You removed the paragraph below that was on speed of light claiming without any support that I have misread all the documentation. Here is the paragraph:

Outer space and ultra high vacuum approximate free space, but may have a non-trivial refractive index (that is, an index different from one). Ongoing experimental and theoretical work continues to explore the possibility of small departures of these mediums from free space, which could prove or disprove some theories of quantum gravity, or provide further corroboration of the predictions of quantum electrodynamics.^[1]

Personally I cannot see how any misreading has occurred. Here is a verbatim quote from Delphenich:

“Now, by the term "electromagnetic vacuum", what we really intend is not a region of space in there is no energy present, whether in the form of mass or photons, but a region of space in which only an electromagnetic field is present. Hence, there is some justification for treating the electromagnetic vacuum as a polarizable medium in the optical sense, which suggests that treating the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the vacuum as simply constants, ε0 and μ0, is basically a pre-quantum approximation, as well as the constancy of the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, c0 = 1/√ε0μ0 , or, equivalently, the index of refraction of the vacuum. We shall regard these constants as asymptotic zero-field values of field dependent functions. The fact that c0 itself might vary with the strength of the field suggests that quantum electrodynamics might even have something deep and subtle to say about causality itself that goes beyond the familiar concepts of special relativity.”

Here's a quote from Moulin:

“This study is motivated by a desire to investigate the possibility of using recently developed powerful ultrashort (femtosecond) laser pulses to demonstrate the existence of nonlinear effects in vacuum, predicted by quantum electrodynamics (QED).”

Here's a quote from Marklund:

“The quantum vacuum constitutes a fascinating medium of study, in particular since near-future laser facilities will be able to probe the nonlinear nature of this vacuum. There has been a large number of proposed tests of the low-energy, high intensity regime of quantum electrodynamics (QED) where the nonlinear aspects of the electromagnetic vacuum comes into play…”

Here's a quote from Mourou et al,:

“The laser fields … will also enable one to access the nonlinear regime of quantum electrodynamics, where the effects of radiative damping are no longer negligible. Furthermore, when the fields are close to the Schwinger value, the vacuum can behave like a nonlinear medium in much the same way as ordinary dielectric matter…”

Here's a quote from Davis et al.:

“The most important magneto-optical interactions that can occur in material media are the Faraday effect, magnetic dichroism, and magnetic birefringence (the Cotton-Mouton effect). Quantum electrodynamics predicts that because of photon-photon interactions even the vacuum becomes birefringent in the presence of a strong magnetic field. …An improved experimental arrangement is needed to pursue vacuum magnetic birefringence and polarization rotation effects. With an improved system, detection of the QED- predicted magnetic birefringence should be possible …”

Where is the misinterpretation? What are you talking about? Maybe I should just do a series of verbatim quotes? Brews ohare (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin, how about letting this small paragraph stand? It seems to be backed up by sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin: You have not attempted to point out precisely what is objectionable in my paragraph above summarizing the above references. You simply ignore all appeals for specifics and continuously revert edits, be they posted by me or by others. I cannot understand your actions as intending to improve the article. They appear instead to be just acts of pique or of vested interest.

For example, here is the Delphenich verbatim quote with the changes made to introduce the term "classical free space" proposed by several editors:

“Now, by the term "electromagnetic vacuum", what we really intend is not a region of space in there is no energy present, whether in the form of mass or photons, but a region of space in which only an electromagnetic field is present. Hence, there is some justification for treating the electromagnetic vacuum as a polarizable medium in the optical sense, which suggests that treating the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the vacuum as simply constants, ε0 and μ0, [(that is, as "classical free space")] is basically a pre-quantum approximation, as well as the constancy of the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, c0 = 1/√ε0μ0 , or, equivalently, the index of refraction of the vacuum. We shall regard these constants [pertaining to the medium of "classical free space"] as asymptotic zero-field values of field dependent functions. The fact that c0 itself might vary with the strength of the field suggests that quantum electrodynamics might even have something deep and subtle to say about causality itself that goes beyond the familiar concepts of special relativity.”

It is beyond my imagination how these insertion of the words "classical free space" detract from the meaning, and with this insertion the paragraph proposed says exactly what Delphenich is saying. Brews ohare (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin: A merged proposal is at Talk:Speed_of_light#Merged_proposal. Maybe you will like it?? Brews ohare (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I came across this:

Helium, when it is breathed, increases the pitch of (parts of ) the human voice because it changes the resonant frequencies of the vocal cavities. It does this because the speed of sound is different in helium from that in air.

Martin Hogbin

I guess your intended explanation is right, but the formulation not. No pitch is increased, but the division of the energy over the present pitches shifts, whence the parts with the higher pitch become more audible. Nijdam (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys both seem to be mixing pitch (psychophysics) with formant frequencies. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In what way does my answer suffer from that confusion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you said "the pitch of (parts of ) the human voice", I suspect you meant "the frequencies of the formants of the human voice"; it may also affect the pitch, but not much. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As the "discussion" really gets chaotic, I address you here. I understand you are a strong advocate of the so-called unconditional solution. Of course, I hope, also to an unconditional problem. Let's first clarify that the formulation of the problem in which the numbers of the chosen door and the opened door are given, essentially form a conditional problem. I hope you agree on this. Please simply answer below with yes (or no), and I will continue from there. Nijdam (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that I can answer you question Nijdam, I have not thought much about door numbering. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try. You did a lot of thinking about this problem, so it cannot be to much trouble to clarify this point. Nijdam (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you would have to spell out exactly what the question is for me to answer. By the way I would rather have this discussion on one of the project talk pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Better not, because a thousand ignorants will fall over it and make a fruitfull discussion impossible. To spell out the problem exactly, means only writing down the formulation as given in the article:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice? (Whitaker 1990)

As you will well know, the numbers of the doors involved are explicitly mentioned. So to repeat my question; do you agree that this formulation, with the given numbers of the doors, essentially forms a conditional problem. Nijdam (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think may answer is no, on the basis that the host opening a door and revealing a goat does not change the initial probability that the player has chosen a car. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What conditional are you guys discussing? Condition of which door you chose first? If so, that's quite irrelevant as the that door can be relabeled numbered 1 without loss of generality. The important thing is whether the host's action in opening a door and offering a swap is unconditional or not, as it's left unspecified in the statement above; if he ALWAYS does, it's a very simple problem; if not, you need to know more about the conditional probability, or rules, of him choosing to do so or not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick, have you read the discussion on the article talk page? If you want to continue this discussion, i suggest that we do it on the arguments page there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

@Martin: I hope you don't mind, I indented your reply to keep it apart from others. Now about your answer. As you say no, I think we need to specify the probability space. Will you do this or do you accept I write it down? Nijdam (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

After you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The sample space consist of 18 outcomes, represented by the columns of this scheme:

chosen  K:   1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  3  3  3  3
car     A:   1  1  2  3  1  2  2  3  1  2  3  3
opened  O:   2  3  3  2  3  1  3  1  2  1  1  2
---------------------------------------------------
probability  1  1  2  2  2  1  1  2  2  2  1  1 /18

The last row gives the probability function, each entry to be divided by 18. For simplicity we may write [132] to indicate the 4th column, with the meaning: chosen Door 1, car behind Door 3, opened Door 2. The stochastic variables K, A and O speak for themselves and may eventually be used for ease of notation. Agree? Nijdam (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't deliberately made a mistake in the probabilities, but I have corrected them. I will refer to this probability function as ${\displaystyle p_{0}}$. I.e the prob. the car is behind door 1 is:

${\displaystyle P_{0}(A=1)=p_{0}([112])+p_{0}([113])+p_{0}([213])+p_{0}([312])={\tfrac {6}{18}}={\tfrac {1}{3}}}$.

And the prob. the car is behind a door that is chosen is:

${\displaystyle P_{0}(A=K)=p_{0}([112])+p_{0}([113])+p_{0}([221])+p_{0}([223])+p_{0}([331])+p_{0}([332])={\tfrac {6}{18}}={\tfrac {1}{3}}}$.

Hence the prob. the car is behind one of the two not chosen doors is:

${\displaystyle P_{0}(A\neq K)=1-P_{0}(A=K)={\tfrac {2}{3}}}$.

Right? Nijdam (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As you didn't answer till now, I guess you agree on this. Now there is an aspect of the problem, we didn't notice till now: is it necessary the choices of the doors occur random. i.e. with equal probabilities? I would say: unimportant. agree? Nijdam (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd be better off keeping this on the article talk page as Martin had suggested. As to whether the initial prob distribution is important, yes, very; if you know the probability is heavy on doors 1 and 2, for example, then always starting with door 3 would be a great strategy. If you mean does the initial distribution affect whether always switching is a winning strategy, probably not, but you'd probably need to do some work to prove that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my guess is, it's better off here, otherwise it would drown in all the comments of others. I see, I didn't make myself clear: I meant only the distribution of the door picking (choice) by the player. I would say that it is irrelevant. Nijdam (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nijdam but I really do not think I can be of much use to you here. I am not expert in the theory of probability and I am not terribly knowledgeable of its notation and mathematics. I think the real problems come from the way the way the question is formulated. Although I originally accepted your sample space, I now feel that I should ask why it does not include other possibilities, like the words used by Monty. As you know, these are being discussed elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Martin, have a look at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments‎ where I gave an example of a simplified problem. And as for your question of including other possibillities: I might have, allthough they are not part of the problem, but they are irrelevant to the problem and do not change the conclusions. Nijdam (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, Martin, please read the section Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments‎#Simple play.Nijdam (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Martin (and Nijdam). Thanks for the message on my talk page. As a "professional" I have had a professional interest in the Monty Hall problem for quite some time. The first time I heard it, I gave the wrong answer. It's a beautiful paradox. However it was only recently that I became aware (through wikipedia) that there was this big issue about a conditional versus an unconditional formulation of the problem.

My current standpoint is the following. I assume till further notice that the player chooses his door uniformly at random, and that the quizmaster (who knows the location of the car) always opens one of the other two doors displaying a goat. With these assumptions, the probability that the car is behind the other door is 2/3. My informal argument for this is that when the game is repeated many times under these conditions, in 1/3 of the times the player is standing at the door with the car, 2/3 of the time standing at a door with a goat. On the first 1/3 occasions the car is never behind the other closed door; on the other 2/3 occasions the car is always behind the other closed door. This verbal argument which I think everyone understands can be converted into a mathematical proof, if you feel the need, by simply writing it out in formulas.

Prob(other closed door hides car) = Prob(other closed door hides car | first choice was correct) x Prob( first choice was correct) + Prob(other closed door hides car | first choice was wrong) x Prob(first choice was wrong) = 0 x 1/3 + 1 x 2/3

On the other hand, under the same conditions, the probability that the other door hides the car given that you have chosen door 1 and the quizmaster has opened door 2 depends on the quiz-team's strategy for hiding the car and the quiz-master's strategy of which door to open. The quiz-team's strategy consists of the three probabilities adding to 1, for putting the car behind doors 1, 2 or 3. The quiz-master's strategy consists of probabilities (adding to 1) for opening door 2 or 3 when the player has chosen 1 and the car is behind 1, probabilities for opening door 1 or 3 (adding to 1) when player has chosen 2 and the car is behind 2, and probabilities for opening door 1 or 2 (adding to 1) when the player has chosen 3 and the car is behind 3.

In particular, Prob(car is behind 3 | player chose 1 and QM opened 2) = Prob(car = 3 & player = 1 and QM = 2) / Prob(player = 1 and QM = 2) = Prob(car = 3) x 1/3 x 1 / ( Prob(car=3) x 1/3 x 1 + Prob(car = 1) x 1/3 x Prob( QM = 2 | car =1 = player )).

Let me make the assumption that the quiz-team puts the car behind each of the three doors with equal probability 1/3. I suppose the player chooses his door independently of the location of the car; it now doesn't matter what probabilities he uses, as we'll see! Then we get

Prob(car behind 3 | player chose 1 and QM opened 2) = Prob(car = 3 | player = 1 & QM = 2) = Prob(car = 3 & player = 1 & QM = 2)/Prob(player = 1 & QM = 2) = Prob(car=3 & player =1 & QM = 2)/(Prob(car=3 & player =1 & QM = 2) + Prob(car=1 & player =1 & QM=2)) = Prob(QM = 2 | car=3 & player =1) / ( Prob(QM = 2 | car=3 & player =1) + Prob(QM = 2 | car=1 & player =1) ) because Prob( car=3 & player =1) = Prob(car=1 & player =1) . Thus the required conditional probability equals 1 / ( 1 + Prob(QM = 2 | car=1 & player =1) )

This can be as small as 1/2 and as large as 1, as we vary Prob(QM = 2 | car =1 = player ) from 1 down to 0. So the conditional probability is not fixed without specifiying the quiz-master's strategy, but it is always at least 1/2. Therefore, conditionally on the player's information, it is never to the player's disadvantage not to switch doors (sorry for triple negative). And to reach this conclusion, all we had to assume was that the initial location of the car was uniform at random.

Gill110951 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, R., nothing new to me. Rick Block and me have given this analysis in different forms over and over. The point of discussion stays. The so called unconditional "solution" doesn't solve the posed MHP. Look at it from this side: you're standing next to the player. She chooses one of the doors and the quizmasters opens one. From that moment on they are not just any doors, but specific known doors. And the player has to decide in the situation she's in, i.e. given the specific chosen and opened doors. That's why in the formulation of the problem it reads: say No. 1 and say No. 3.Nijdam (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject here -- that's true, but the problem as stated is strongly suggestive of the possibility that we are in a situation with a certain symmetry, in which the specific door chosen by the contestant and the specific door opened by the host are not expected to changed the probability of the outcome. With this traditional interpretation, the unconditional solution does solve the problem correctly; all we want is to present the simple traditional solution first; after that, you can comlicate the problem and provide the correct solution for the problem lacking such symmetry. Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's strange that you don't understand the difference. When you say: it solves the problem correctly, you seem to suggest it produces the right answer. And that is true. but it doesn't do this in a proper way. So it does not explain the answer. I than say: it does not solve the problem. Nijdam (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement over whether the Morgan paper refers only to the specific case where the player picks door 1 and the host opens door 3. It seems that Dicklyon and Nijdam agree with me that the Morgan paper refers only to this specific case but Rick Block believes that the Morgan paper somehow applies to the case where the host has opened either door 2 or door 3. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim any originality. I have not read the sources. I have not studied the wikipedia discussions. I am not well motivated to study poor solutions (even if published in peer reviewed journals) to badly posed problems.I have simply used my brains and my professional knowledge and written out what I believe can be said. If all we are willing to assume is that the player picks the good door with probability 1/3, then all we can conclude is that (unconditionally) the probability the car is behind the other door is 2/3. If all we are willing to assume is that the car is hidden with equal probability behind each door, then we can affirm that conditional on the player's and the QM's choices, it is never to the player's disadvantage to switch doors, and it might be greatly to his advantage. Conversely, if you want unequivocal unconditional and conditional answers respectively, then there are different minimal sets of assumptions which have to be made. Now it is not clear that in a short verbal description of the problem "..., e.g. door 1 and door 2, ..." implies that we are actually being asked to solve the problem conditional on these choices. Did the person who asked the question understand the question and understand the answers? A mathematician's job is to figure out which questions make sense. It is much more interesting to find the right questions than to find the right answers. But anyway, we know that if you want certain questions to have an unequivoval answer, then you are going to have to make some assumptions, beyond what is strictly implied by the wording of the informal question. I do think that what I have figured out about the game-theoretic approach is new and interesting, though of course it is very elementary, and I plan to turn my draft (pdf on my website) into a serious paper. Gill110951 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry R. Use your professional knowledge! If the car is put randomly, the probability it is behind door 1 is the same as for door 2 and door 3. All 1/3. So for any other door the (unconditional) probability the car is behind it is 1/3. The problem you are faced with is of course having written this paper. But at least admit that a right question may be: if door 1 is chosen and door 3 opened showing a goat, what to do? This is the situation a player might find herself in. Or any other combination. It is also the charm of the problem. If the host uses the random strategy, the player has to use extra symmetry arguments to reach the conclusion that for any situation she may find herself in, she wins the car with conditional prob. 2/3 when she switches. But notice: she considers every situation she will meet. Which means that her conclusion is that in all situations the conditional probability is the same and hence numerically equal to the unconditional. But it is the conditional probability she bases her decision on. Choosing and opening means conditioning. State any other problem and solve it, but in the MHP the player is on stage, points at a door and another door is opened and shows a goat, and in this situation she has to decide. Nijdam (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

@Nijdam: I agree that a question a player can be faced with is that, having chosen door 1 and door 3 opened showing a goat, she has to decide what to do. Indeed she is now interested in the conditional probability of the car being behind door 1 or 2. In order to compute conditional probabilities we need some probabilities to start with. I think of the game as proceeding in three stages, each of which can be random: stage (1) location of the car by the quiz-team, stage (2) choice of the door by the player, stage (3) choice of door to open by quizmaster. I suppose that stage (2) is statistically independent of stage (1). Stage (3) can involve any conditional probabilty distribution whatever. It is now a fact that if (1) is done uniformly at random, then (2) doesn't matter, and whatever (3), it is not to the player's disadvantage to switch, since the conditional probability you and I are interested in is greater than or equal to 1/2. If on the other hand (1) is not the uniform distribution, then there is not so much one can say. But one can say that if the player chooses her door at random, her unconditional chance of winning is 2/3. And I think it is interesting that the uniform strategy of the quizteam and the uniform strategy of the player are minimax ... But you are welcome not to find this interesting.

My paper is not a paper, it is a draft, and I benefit from discussions like this, so the next version will be even better. Thanks!

Finally, as to what is "the" MHP problem, that is a debate which I'm not qualified to participate in, since I did not read the original references. Even if I did, I might well want to criticize what those original authors have written. In particular I get the impression that I would not much like the Morgan paper. Gill110951 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, R. Switching is under the conditions you mention always advantageous. But how does the player know this? Because she calculated the conditional probabilities. That's where she bases her decision on. Not on the unconditional 2/3 when switching. If she argues using the unconditional probability, she needs at least some extra arguments, involving the conditional probabilities, perhaps without actual calculating them. But the conditional probabilities are the ones used for her decision. With the player, I mean of course the player on stage who made her choice and whom the quizzmaster has opened another door. I do not mean a player in general. The average player will win the car in 2/3 of the cases when switching, but an "individual" player might have different chances, depending on the quizzmaster's strategy. For the average player the unconditional pobability is sufficient, but the individual one needs the condition. Agree? Nijdam (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please R., before this turns out to be a problem of wording, formulate the problem and solution in this terminology: number the doors 1, 2 and 3; let C=door with car, X=door chosen initially, A=door opened by host. Assume: P(C=c)=1/3 and P(X=x)=1/3 (although unimportant), C and X independent. Then what?Nijdam (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

@NIjdam: I don't wish to assume what you have assumed, and on the other hand, I think it is important that C and X are independent. We are interested in the situation where the quizmaster and the player are not in collusion and are not able to read one another's mind. Gill110951 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Martin, for your words in Talk:Monty_Hall_problem/Arguments. You are right: I found your "critique of Morgan et al." and I appreciate it as an important aspect for the MHP article. Regads, -- Gerhardvalentin (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your undo as you provided no reference for your argument and started a discussion on the SoL talk page here. If you would like to discuss it, please do so there.OlYeller^Talktome 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Monty-MiddlePickCar.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reply to my comment, if you don't I will delete the section and the page it links to. Paradoctor (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If Haggstrom or his supporters are going round adding images to articles that will not benefit from them then I agree that this should be stopped, however, if the consensus of editors on any particular article is that a human image would be helpful then I see no problem with using his. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the image in the copper article is somewhat superfluous and I have deleted it. Let us see what the reaction of other editors is. I think that oxygen plays such a vital role in human life that a diagram is justified here. I can see this image getting out of hand and we should all try to stop that but I have no objection to the concept. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For this purpose a diagram in which a human silouette figures, might be helpful, but why a recognizable person, and why somebody recognizable as Häggström?? This stuff is growing like Kudzu. You want another? I see he now has his face stuck in the Wiki on gold, even though gold toxicity does nothing to the face. So now you have yet another article to look at. SBHarris 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

while looking into the 'fundamental importance', i stumbled onto this post & as can be expected, figured i should talk to you. have anything to share? hoping to get into media & make something abit more legendary. bandaidsrcool@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.46.149 (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I left a note on Brews's talk page which equally applies to yourself. You may as well read it rather than me writing it out again. If you could both openly declare what is driving you in this argument, I might be able to suggest a way forward. David Tombe (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Speed of light. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. tedder (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, before you get too heavy handed with me you might like to take a look at the history of the 'Speed of light' to see what I am trying to do. The page was once an FA and I am trying to get that status back by steady, cooperative editing. Unfortunately, there are a couple of editors who are using the page as a soapbox for their own extremely unconventional views on the subject. I can see no way round this attempt to subvert but to revert edits that are essentially crackpot science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with your reading of . The document says: "a new definition of the metre has been envisaged in various forms all of which have the effect of giving the speed of light an exact value [...] these various forms [...] making reference either to the path travelled by light in a specified time interval or to the wavelength of a radiation of measured or specified frequency [...] have been recognized as being equivalent"

That is, they are considering various proposed standards for the metre, all of which would give the speed of light an exact value. It is these proposed standards which they state are equivalent to each other.

Note that the pre-1983 definition, which is in terms of wavelengths of radiation from a specified natural source, does not fall into the categories listed as equivalent (because it is not of a measured or specified frequency).

Lastly, the document notes that the new definition has the effect of "giving the speed of light an exact value, equal to the recommended value" - in order for the definitional change to have such an effect it must not be not exactly equivalent to the old. EdwardLockhart (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I take your point, the frequency of the krypton source could not be measured in 1960, so this radiation could not be referred to as having a measured frequency. Whether you could say its frequency was 'specified' is perhaps debatable, its value in Hz was could not be determined but it still had a fixed value. My point is that the atomic transition defines the frequency of the emitted light and the wavelength is determined by the speed of light. In other words the 1960 standard is the exactly distance travelled by light in a fixed time, but in 1960 that time was not known in seconds.

I accept that with the 1983 definition there are two sources of uncertainty in realization of the metre, one is that of measuring the frequency of the light used and the other of delineating the metre using this light. The point that Brews does not seem to get is that all these problems relate to uncertainty in the realization of the metre and do not stop the speed of light from being exact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point about the time not being known in seconds. The point of Brews' that I was agreeing with was this - suppose we have someone who learns the following facts in order:

1. The definition of the second
2. The definition of the metre
3. The speed of light in m/s

Then with the pre-1983 definitions, this person is able to make the following deductions about the results of measurements at each stage:

1. The frequency of some Caesium radiation
2. The wavelength of some Krypton radiation
3. The wavelength of (1), the frequency of (2)

But with the post-1983 definitions, they can only make the following deductions:

1. The frequency of some Caesium radiation
2. The wavelength of (1)
3. None

In this restricted and largely useless sense, a pre-1983 statement of the speed of light has more physical information embedded in it.

To put it another way. Suppose we substitute the SI definition of the metre into the statement "the speed of light is 299792458 m/s". Pre-1983, we get:

• The speed of light is N krypton wavelengths per second.

Post 1983:

• The speed of light is 1 lightsecond per second.

Translating into natural units, we get:

• 1 = N . krypton wavelength => krypton wavelength = 1/N

vs:

• 1 = 1

So again, there is physical content in the pre-1983 statement that is not present in the post-1983 statement. It's not especially interesting content, but it is there.

I don't claim that this is an important or interesting fact, but I do think that in attempting to engage constructively with Brews, It would be best to acknowledge his correct statements as well as criticise his incorrect ones. Conceivably this might help him see the errors in his reasoning (on which subject I think we are in exact agreement). Of course, I would quite understand if you thought an attempt at constructive engagement on this point was a waste of time though! EdwardLockhart (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, you are welcome to argue with Brews any way you want and I will keep out of the argument. I think it would be better to move all discussion of this topic to the page that I have set up in my talk space, the article talk page really does not need it. I am refusing to argue about the physics on the article talk page now and I think other editors should do the same. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

EdwardLockhart: As you can see, not only does Martin refuse to argue with me, but he refuses to take up the points you make as well. Of course a fringe count is a length measurement, completely separate from a time-of-transit measurement, and therefore the pre-1983 definition has more in it than the post-1983 definition. That is the whole point that Martin will not admit, either because he hates to backtrack on his espoused views, or because the logic of this just does not sink in. I have no idea how Martin squares a need to measure a value of c of approximately 299 792 458 m/s before 1983 with a defined value of c of exactly 299 792 458 m/s post-1983 that no longer need be measured. It does appear that historically there is evidence for greater and greater accuracy in c over time, but apparently today we have it nailed. Of course, that is not true, and the enshrined value 299 792 458 m/s has nothing to do with the exact speed of light in a physical sense. Instead, it has to do with replacing length comparisons in terms of fringe-counts with times-of-transit, making length superfluous in the SI system. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I will be happy to go through these points in the page in my talk space if it is of interest to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can see, you have stopped contributing to User_talk:Martin_Hogbin/Speed_of_light_set_by_definition. Brews ohare (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I have not responded as quickly as you would like but sometimes I do have other things to do. I will respond later. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, The section on the luminiferous aether that Tim Shuba removed, had not, as you have just claimed, been hi-jacked by crackpot science. This claim all comes down to your opinion on Maxwell's 1861 paper, which is clearly an aspect of history which you prefer not to be reminded of. There is nothing crackpot about it. Maxwell demonstrated how the experimental measurements of the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio leads to a wave equation with the speed of light. It is an aspect of the speed of light which is not related to direct measurements of that speed. I agree with your objections to Tim Shuba's removal of that material, but try to avoid referring to Maxwell's work as crackpottery. David Tombe (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim's removal of the section has saved me from needing to have this discussion, for which I thank him. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, You are taking advantage of a biased page ban. The content material of that section was entirely appropriate because it dealt with the most important aspect in the entire history of the speed of light. That is of course the convergence of the measured speed of light by Fizeau and the linkage to the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio through the experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. What possible motive could you possibly have for wanting to hide this important piece of history from the history section? It's repercussions were still around even when I was teaching physics. It's only since the 1983 re-definition of the metre that it all seems to have been swept under the carpet. David Tombe (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not taking advantage of anything because I have not deleted anything from the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, you are simply ducking engagement by using a pretext. It would be more appropriate for you to sort the history out and put in a proper development. Supporting Tim Shuba as a convenient way to avoid dealing with the history is not laudable. Brews ohare (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin: You removed the following entire sourced subsection of speed of light without comment or discussion, even though it was rewritten to emphasize its relevance and to avoid any comments that might be considered as WP:SYNTH or WP:OR:

Defined speed of light and lengths as times-of-transit

The 1983 definition of the metre introduced the SI units speed of light c₀ = 299 792 458 m/s as a defined (not measured) value. Setting the speed of light to a defined numerical value in the SI units means comparisons of length become equivalent to comparisons of transit times of light.^[1][2]

This equivalence is established by thinking of measurement as a comparison between the quantity being measured and the standard unit; it is a matter of ratios.^[3] Mathematically, comparison of two lengths ℓ₁, ℓ₂ with times-of-transit of light, t₁, t₂ may be expressed as the ratio

${\displaystyle {\frac {\ell _{1}}{\ell _{2}}}={\frac {c\ t_{1}}{c\ t_{2}}}={\frac {t_{1}}{t_{2}}},}$

which is independent of the speed of light c, so long as the same speed of light is realized while measuring both times-of-transit.

As an example, if the time t₂ in the above equation is selected as t₂ = 1/299,792,458 s, and the measurement is done in "vacuum", then ℓ₁ is determined in metres. Thus, choosing ℓ₂ as one metre, the above equation is simply

${\displaystyle \ell _{1}={\frac {t_{1}}{t_{2}}}\ell _{2}={\frac {\ell _{2}}{t_{2}}}t_{1}={\frac {1~\mathrm {m} }{1/299,792,458~\mathrm {s} }}t_{1}=299,792,458~\mathrm {m/s} \times t_{1},}$

which recovers the fundamental definition of length provided by the BIPM.^[4] This result shows that the determination of ℓ₁ in units of metres is determined completely by the standard time interval selected for the metre, namely 1/299,792,458 s . It also establishes that the use of a transit time of 1/299,792,458 s to define the metre is equivalent to defining the conversion factor between time and length as 299,792,458 m/s.

In-line references

Overview of deleted article

Specifically, to outline the status of each paragraph:

1. Paragraph 1 is simply a preamble to introduce the subsection and makes the point that comparisons of transit time replace comparisons of length. This point is supported by two published sources that say exactly that. They are quoted verbatim in the footnotes. Brews ohare (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Paragraph 2 introduces the notion of length comparison via ratios, supported by another source.
3. Paragraph 3 simpy evaluates the ratio expression to show it produces the BIPM definition, which also is sourced.

That is all there is here, IMO. The entire purpose is to discuss clearly the tight connection between a defined "speed-of-light" and the use of transit times for length in the SI system of units. Judging from the Talk page, this is a topic that needs some elaboration. Would you be so kind as to provide specifics as to why you deleted this material in its entirety, without comment or even an Editorial Summary, labeling it as m for minor? Can you identify some statement or wording (that is, something beyond broad generalities) in this sourced material that you find does not meet WP guidelines? Perhaps it can be fixed without a need for total reversion without comment? Brews ohare (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Brews, it should be clear to you that your misconceptions on this subject are not required on 'Speed of light' article. Several editors have told you this and have deleted them from the article. You have abandoned our discussion the subject on the page that I set up for the purpose. Not only will I continue to delete your own personal and inaccurate views on this subject but I will suggest that other editors do the same. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin: I am happy to correct my misconceptions, but you have not pointed out to me what is objectionable in the above submission. I think it is plain vanilla and completely sourced. Please tell me specifically, verbatim, what is there that seems to you mistaken. At the moment, I feel your reaction is unrelated to this particular submission. Brews ohare (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE: Upon the request of Brews ohare and Abtract, you have been added as an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed of light. —Finell (Talk) 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. 86.142.238.242 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In accord with the edit notice (), a portion of your evidence submission has been moved to the talk page. None of the information has been deleted. Everything moved from the main evidence page is entirely preserved on the talk page. It is possible that the moved portion may require more supporting links to be appropriate for evidence or that the portion moved is simply more commentary than evidence. Please review the moved portion to decide if it needs revision as an evidence submission or if it should remain on the talk page as commentary. If you feel that this contribution was moved in error, please feel free to contact me to discuss the matter. Thank you for your understanding. Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The cats out of the bag, Martin, and all the sources are moving ahead without us. Please reach some compromise or give up blocking mention of the results of the tests. You can't keep this up forever, and we need your influence to ensure that it is properly done. Chrisrus (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the results of some tests have been published. Which tests and where were they published? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant in the news. What kind of publishing are you waiting for? Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but which news? TV radio, when and where? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Turn on the radio, or Google News it, or whatever. Don't you get the paper? Chrisrus (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen or head the news today. I can find nothing new on Google news. Could you give me a link please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=semenya

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/semenya-has-no-womb-or-ovaries/story-e6frexni-1225771672245

I thought you were referring to news! That is all old hat. I will continue on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you responded to JFQ than me, if it's all the same to you. Chrisrus (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I had already written my response to you before I read this but I have left a response to JFQ's statement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Given you change of opinion as to the appropriate remedy for Brews, I suggest, for the sake of clarity, that you (1) mark your present proposed remedy as struck out (but don't delete it) and (2) add a new proposed remedy, underneath the discussion, of a topic ban for Brews. Finell (Talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
• David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
• Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
• Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Martin - we edit conflicted at talk:Monty Hall problem. Are you willing to refactor your suggestion into the structure I set up? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I will do that Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the t:GW snakepit. It seem to me as something of a newcomer that material is being removed from this page - but you don't say what. If you do, I can tell you. A quick look through this talk page shows that practically none of it is directly about improving the article - yes, the talk page is badly ill-disciplined. If you can see a way to improve that, please do. I favour deleting irrelevance and early chopping of sections such as "Article Title incongruent with content" which have no hope of going anywhere to try to keep discussion focussed. I could ahve said all this over there, of course, but it would have got buried William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am generally not in favour of removing material from the talk pages at all. As I proposed, if it is desired to keep the talk page clearly focused then as sub page for general discussion is an idea. The problem is that it is hard to separate improving the article from general discussion when the topic of the page is contentious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it is a difficult problem. You are suggesting a general "discussion of blah" page and keeping the article talk page itself for specific topics? And people posting generic stuff to the article talk page would have their stuff moved to the sub page? And who would handle the inevitable claims of censorship? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Where I have seen it done before, editors were simply asked to continue general discussions to the 'discussions' page. The problem with a strict rule is that it is not possible to agree on how to improve an article if there is no agreement on the subject matter. In that case either the strict 'improving the artcle' rule needs to be relaxed or a separate page set up.

What is with all this archiving sections? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a non-starter. Most of the trash on the page is by non-focussed contributors who *want* to rant; they aren't going to politely go off to a sub-page where they can rant unnoticed William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all well and good for you to say they're just "ranting;" however, that is an opinion based on criteria which you define, based on opinions which you hold. I agree with Martin; there is extremely thin grounds for removing other editors' comments, based on your personal opinion that they are off-topic. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk)

Martin - The draft is just that, a draft. It is not appropriate to comment on it yet. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not draft anymore, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glkanter. You're welcome to add a "Response" or an "Outside view", but you might want to wait until Dicklyon certifies the official RFC (if he doesn't within two days it simply expires quite harmlessly). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, Just for info part of the problem with GW articles is this. There are three or four GW sock masters who produce on average one new sock a day each with a specific pattern: ten to twenty edits elsewhere and then try to introduce "Global warming is a fraud" type language into the article. It is tiresome and makes everyone a bit short with edit summaries etc. It also makes the discussion tedious because the socks turn up in hordes in some of the discussion, make a lot of personal attacks and allegations etc and when two days later the CU has gone through they repeat with another sock. Few people flicking through the discussions bother to strike sock comments and it gives a distorted view. I didn't look at your talk page comments but anything you could do to help is welcome and I am sorry if you felt you were not welcomed on the page. But introducing new rules has got to allow for this disruption --BozMo talk 07:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you offer to help. Let me tell you what caused me to take the action that I did. First let me state clearly that I am a AGW sceptic and I believe that there are two sides to the subject which should be appropriately represented in the article. I do not believe that it is the same as creationism or holocaust denial where there really is only one side to the story. That being said I fully support WP policy of requiring support from reliable sources, especially as this is a FA.

So, I looked at my watchlist and saw an edit, marked as minor and reversion of vandalism. When I looked at the diff, I saw that the material that had been reverted was information on the subject of the article, rather than say 'Climate change scientists are wankers'. It was not particularly well written, it was unencyclopedic and the sourcing may have been dubious, but it was not vandalism. The reversion was also marked as a minor edit, which it clearly was not. In order to draw attention to what I consider rather oppressive and impolite behaviour I, rather rashly, reverted the edit with a short explanation. I was expecting my change to be reverted but that it would cause editors to look at the talk page, where I had given a little more detail on why I had taken the action that I had. After a short discussion on the talk page I was rather rudely told to 'take my whining elsewhere', and the section was deleted. I restored the section with a note that I would start an RfC if the section was removed again. It was so I did. It is a rather silly escalation of what could have been an informal discussion on the talk page but I feel that I was left with no choice. Some regular editors of this article do seem to have a strong feeling of page ownership with ruthless suppression of any dissenting opinion. Had the edit summary said something along the lines of, 'Remove poorly sourced and unencyclopedic material', I would probably have left it. All I am asking for is the normal polite formalities of WP to be followed. The more contentions the topic, the more important this is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Am back from a break now but still on leave. Ok, I see. In general edits which are believed to be sock edits do get reverted under minor. I agree people should be civil and not tell you to take your whining elsewhere. When I have a minute I will look through the diffs. --BozMo talk 21:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Which RFC? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The one I have just started. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the RFC. Your langauge there is well over the top - ruthless etc. And you give no examples. Are you sure this is as temperate as it should be? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See the history above. There are only a couple of diffs which I will add to the RfC but discussion of the subject was deleted from the talk page. Where else do I go? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to add some extra diffs - see there. And I rather suspect that you need to have a real problem, this isn't one, or at least it doesn't look like one yet. I still don't understand how you could have though that everyone would be so familiar with this that you didn't need to tell us what it was William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added an explanation at the top of the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean that this complains a missing edit, but you don't say what it is William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see, I will add that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I totally agree with your comments regarding the global warming page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.240.60 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I just closed that discussion, as it focuses on your fellow volunteer editors rather than improvements to the article. Please follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in any future similar situations. You appear to be attempting to engage in good faith and I would prefer not to block you, but this family of articles is subject to a fair bit of disruptive editing at the moment. Please be especially careful to keep your discussions on topic per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and avoid edit warring in preference to discussion and consensus. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I only wish that I could discuss the issues involved with the Global warming article but I have been blocked at every turn by the regular editors there. I first made a comment on what I believed to be an incorrect edit summary. THis discussion was immediately deleted from the talk page. I restored it and it was deleted again. I therefore started an RfC to get the opinions of other uninvolved editors, as I understand it this a recommended dispute resolution procedure.

You are now proposing to close the RfC before other, uninvolved, editors have had a chance to comment. This is quite wrong in my opinion and contrary to the whole spirit of WP and cooperative editing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have something specific to add to GW - it needs a section on dissent. Searching for similar controversise, I checked Evolution - which has a perfectly decent one here, 4 paragraphs and around 10% of the article. (Actually, it's misleadingly titled (Social_and_cultural_responses) but I searched for "Creationis..." andgot there). Now, I feel that the contra-GW case probably needs rather more detail than that in the GW article, given the public interest and serious scientific doubt expressed from at least some respectable sources. Otherwise, the impression given is of severe bias.

I don't know whether I meet the conditions required to put my name to a challenge, I don't recall picketing individual editors on their TalkPages, which may be a requirement. I'm also leery of getting into a monster argument with editors who, as you seem to say, have no hesitation silencing the opposition. Even my request for a list of decisions on rightful conduct was deleted!

Let me add that I come from the opposite pole to most objectors, because I'm pretty much convinced on GW. There's a well thought out Mechanical Engineering report somewhere that assumes pretty steady sea-level rise (1m/century? I forget) until the year 3000, and when I read it, I suspected it to be an understatement. The very best evidence I see for there being flaws in GW is the deletion of comments like yours and mine. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, scientific theories should be able to stand up to continuous scrutiny. I am not sure if a 'dissent' section is the best way forward, I have no strong objection to it, but this is something that could be discussed on the talk page, if only the current regular editors would allow this. I have even suggested a separate 'Discussion' talk page where more general issues concerning the article could be discussed. (This approach has been used on the Monty Hall problem page, for example) This will only work if those supporting the status quo agree to actively discuss issues on the additional page with a view to longer term changes to the article. The current talk page can be used for discussion of short term and medium term article changes. If the regulars treat the new page as an 'idiots playground' no one will post there and it will be pointless. Posting on the new page must be voluntary, the best way to get editors to use it is for to respond to what they see as disruptive material on the main talk page with something along the lines of "I will reply to the issues you have raised on the 'Discussion' page". Material should only be deleted or moved by the original editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin - Are you working on a formal mediation request for MHP? An informal mediator has dropped by and is willing to try to help. I think we should do one or the other of these. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I have done nothing but I am happy to try either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are listed as an involved/interested party in a request for mediation. This message is an invitation for you to participate in the discussion here. Please join us in the conversation at your earliest convenience.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this part of your position statement in the MHP:

The simple solution section should be followed by an explanation of why some formulations of the problem require the use of conditional probability, with reference to the paper by Morgan et al. and other sources. It should also include the various variations of the basic problem and other, more complex, issues.

I got the idea you had seen the light in the mean time (or was its speed yet too high for you). This part suggests you think of a formulation of the MHP that doesn't require conditional probability. I would very much appreciate you telling me which formulation you have in mind. Nijdam (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How about You will be offered the choice of three doors, and after you chose the host will open a different door, revealing a goat. What is the probability that you win if your strategy is to switch. Which none other than the great Morgan et al. themselves call the unconditional problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is deciding whether or not to switch before the host opens the door (right?). Do you really consider this to be a version of the MHP? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you? Nijdam (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. As I say on my dissenters talk page it is most likely what Whitaker actually wanted to know. You need to consider his question in its proper context. He was not a student of probability posing a question at a lecture he was a member of the general public (or a figment of the editor's imagination) posing a question to a popular general interest magazine. All he probably wanted to know was if was better strategy to switch or stick on a game show. There is no indication in his question that he thinks it is important to consider his choice after the door has been opened.

You may not agree that this is likely meaning of the question but you must surely agree that it is a formulation of the problem. There is nothing worse in my book than being half pedantic. If you are going to insist that we mention the issue of which door the host opens, even when it clearly makes no difference to the answer, then we must also mention that this applies only to some formulations of the problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to join it? Pkeets (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)