Recent content by Dale

I suspect that either Horvath is simply wrong or that he is defining “conclusively show” in a personal way so as to make his conclusion come out the way he wants. A claim that “no studies” show something is pretty sketchy on its face, particularly when there are literally 50 year old journals...

So you are claiming that if I look into, for example, the journal Computers and Education, started in 1976, that I will not find one single paper showing an advantage for computers. Not one. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=17645&tip=sid&clean=0

You could use the whole deck. The ace of spades is the prize and every other card is not. After the contestant chooses one card face down then Monty discards 50 non-prizes face up and offers the switch with the remaining card. It should be pretty easy to distinguish a probability of 1/2 from...

The probability is 1 for each of these rows. The car is behind door 1 and each set contains door 1. So for each set the probability of the car being in the set is 1.

There are two choices. One has 1/3 chance having the car and the other has 2/3 chance to have the car. Your error is in thinking that the two options are equally likely to have the prize. Everyone agrees that there are two options. Your mistake is thinking that the probability is equal. If the...

Only if the two options are equal probability, which they are not. Simply having two options does not mean that the probability is 1/2 https://www.ac-psych.org/en/download-pdf/volume/10/issue/4/id/164

It looks like one of the moderators already deleted it, so you shouldn't need to delete anything else. I think it is just that the journal probably is not on the Clarivate Master Journal List which is the main source we use, although even that list is getting cluttered with dubious journals.

Sure, you can pose it many different ways. But they do not change the mathematical facts I mentioned above. The terms that you obtain are included in the constant of integration. So, they are specified by setting the boundary value Yes, provided that you specify reasonable boundary conditions...

It is a mathematical fact that the terms that you obtain are included in the constant of integration. So, it is a mathematical fact that they are specified by setting the boundary value.

Ahh, I was speaking of the OP.

With an infinite charge distribution I don’t think that “external” is meaningful. But, yes, if you are using this as an approximation for a finite distribution then it would be an external field. Either way, it is a boundary condition. To me, that is the interesting result of this thread. It...

The horizontal field is arbitrary. It can be of any size, from negligible, to same order, to much larger. Although in this case the OP did not formally set it up as a boundary value problem the horizontal field is just a boundary value. There is also an additional constant vertical field that is...

Which is what boundary values are for.

No. I am saying that the important thing is the conditional probabilities. And I am saying that in the regular approach Monty’s knowledge does change the conditional probabilities, so it is important. I never made any claims that knowledge was the only way to set the conditional probabilities.

It is important because it changes the conditional probabilities. As a matter of notation, let’s call the door that the contestant chooses 1 and the door Monty chooses 2. Let’s call the evidence of Monty opening door 2 ##E_2## and look at three hypotheses: ##H_1## the prize is behind door 1...