User talk:JeffJor

Boy or Girl Paradox

You have misinterpreted my points, but misinterpretation is a common mistake when dealing with this paradox. At no time did I make any mention of Question 3. My points deal entirely with Question 2. Confusing one question with another is a common occurrence when dealing with this paradox, and your post on my user page is based on your confusion in that regard, so I shall respectfully disregard it. If you have an interpretation that equates Question 2 with Question 3, that's fine, but please do not post it on my user page. There are many different interpretations, but the place to post them is decidedly not my user talk page. You would be better served in your understanding of the issue by posting your opinions in one or more of the many mathematics forums the internet has to offer. That also applies to your opinion that the solution to the Bertrand's box paradox is 1/2. Since the commonly accepted solution is 2/3, you should limit your discussion of that opinion to web forums in which debate of that opinion is encouraged.

I am fully aware of the discussion you have engaged in regarding this issue on the Boy or Girl paradox talk page. The section you created entitled "I disagree with the solution" is illuminating in that regard. You simply disagree with any answer other than 1/2 for all three questions. My last post in the talk page indicates what is really being calculated. It seems clear that you are not going to accept the solution as given, no matter what anyone else says. That's entirely up to you. However, you stated in that section that the problem statement is ambiguous, but when I suggested the problem statement was ambiguous, you disagreed. As a result of that, I can only assume that you will continually disagree simply to be disagreeable, with no intent of attempting to understand the issue. You are fully allowed to do so. I am also fully allowed to remove myself from any one-on-one debate with you because of this. I say this with all due respect. Within an ongoing discussion on an article's talk page, I will attempt to respond to you in an informative way. But not in any one-on-one discussion save for this one.

Respectfully, Skeetin (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Jeffjor,

Your answers have been a bit evasive, so I just want to clarify: the edits that are listed here: [1] were not made by you?

Thank you, --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My Monty Hall suggestion

My suggestion was intended to be a way forward that would be supported by yourself and glkanter. It gives a little more detail about how the article should be written. Rick persuaded me to add my suggestion into his system, which has rather sidelined it, and was probably a mistake on my part. If you agree, could you make clear in your response that you agree with changing the article in the way that I have suggested. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My motivations

Jeff - You've recently made some edits saying I'm pushing a POV, in particular [2]. I want to assure you that I am in fact interested in the article fully complying with WP:NPOV, as I believe you are. I think we agree on this. If you can refrain from making comments about my motives and stick to commenting on the content I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty Hall problem

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)

Monty Hall problem mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Please consider...

I'd rather you not intersperse your comments into my talk page edits. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation resumes

The mediation has re-started. If you wish to participate, would you be willing to check in on the case talk page? Note that the mediators have asked that participants agree to certain groundrules. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bertrand's Box Paradox

I did not claim that Bertrand or you wewre wrong, on the contrary, I tried to say that it is correct to follow Bertrand with calculating probabilities. About sample space, if you look at Wiki page you will notice that equal probabilities are not mentioned when cases are discussed, that is why it seemed to me strange. In your response they are already mentioned, so I agree, though I still think that constructing such sample space is in a sense, equivalent to solving the problem. When Istart with boxes they are equally probable, but do not generate 0 or 1 probabilities of the conditioning event (gold coin). If I start with coins, they may be not equally parobable if number of G coins in GG box is not equal to total number in the mixed box, as I discussed, so it is wrong to count them without proper weights. To show that they are equiprobbable if these numbers are equal is again to my mind the same as solving the problem itself. Anyhow, I always prefer to start with equiprobable events and then follow up how probabilities split farther.

Regarding you mentioning Boy or Girl paradox, I read MVS pages with your hot discusion with Robert. Maybe we could discuss it some time. I can say strictly that your '50/50' idea, from my point of view, is if not formally, but ideologically completely wrong.(38.108.195.69 (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)) Somehow it didnot show my signature. It was Michaeldsp (Michaeldsp (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

Sleeping Beauty

I've responded on the talk page for the article. Please respond to my comments there. Otherwise I'll assume that you accede to me reverting your change. :-) 125.255.16.233 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)