User talk:Bayes/Archive1

Welcome Bayes; enjoy! Keep ^{me in the DARK} 10:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

The abject ignorance that these people show is astounding, remember this lawyer/homeschool teacher is in expert in EVERYTHING. He is going to teach and advance math course (nothing more than algebra needed) where they will tackle such things as Fermat's last theorem. I can't wait till Schlafly starts claiming that you can provide a proof for that using basic highschool algebra. All around cranks. He is not even a good lawyer. A user recently asked him if all the law cases he was putting up was related to him having a "big case" even Schlafly laughed at the thought of that!

Anyway, welcome to RW, is your ID related to Thomas Bayes? tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 11:37, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, when I joined CP I though it might be interesting to have a handle reflecting the idea of updating logical decisions based on available knowledge, which is what the Bayesian probability people like to say they do. You know, just like the CP editors! My idea of a really obscure inside joke I guess. I noticed the math class also. It was nice to see the disclaimer that those without much experience in algebra could have trouble with Fermat's last theorem. Is anyone around here going to take the class?--Bayes ^Factor 11:50, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

By now Andy's probably calculated the probability that you're a liberal - no doubt in excess of 95.78492690565%. Keep ^{me in the DARK} 11:57, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Inside jokes can provide a barrier of sanity in the CP world, but now you can share them with others sympathetic to your plight, its much nicer. As far as the math class goes, a few people have discussed using socks to join, but not many. They plan to use a "hidden" namespace, but we learned how to read those a month ago when they were using them to "hide" conversations between sysops. So we should have access to the material regardless of joining the class or not.

I am actually in the proccess of playing around with Bayesian inference as an argument for skepticism, Essay:Bayesian Inference and the Power of Skepticism, just doing a few entries a day. Well its good to have you aboard at RW. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 12:04, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Hello and welcome.--Bob_M (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Interesting. I also do some Bayesian inference in the work I do; I'll have to take a look-see. Thanks to everyone for the welcome--Bayes ^Factor 14:24, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Sandbox stuff

Take a look at CP's Einstein article too. You'll see there is little honor for AE there, the article practically asserts Einstein received notoriety for cashing in on Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré's works. The very first AE page was done by Aschlafly himself. It starts out decently but then the darkside takes over. CЯacke® 21:26, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Love your sandboxes: I'm getting more edumacation here (RW) than I have since school (45 years agone). Keep ^{Sardine sandwiches} 06:42, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, glad to help out. This has been a real edumacation for me too. I think Einstein will be next on my to-do list once I get the relativity stuff mainspaced. I'm fascinated by the tendency at CP to go after him in particular. If they want to completely toss relativity, it seems that they should dump on Poincaré, Lorentz, Schwartzchild, etc. also. Instead, they pump up those guys and fart in the general direction of AE.--Bayes ^Factor 16:36, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Quantum collapse

I just read your Quantum collapse! You (and Remarcsd) put my little efforts @ writing a popularisation of such concepts to shame. Please don't hesitate to overwrite any of my contribs if you feel it desirable.

p.s. I don't really grasp quantum collapse - I've read about it for years & it still knots my brain. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 18:30, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I have to plead not guilty to the charge of having any substantive part in said article. My contrtibution has merely been to add some links so the page is more readily accessible to those reading related articles.--Remarcsd 18:53, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Thx. Still have some work to do on that, feel free to mess with it if you like. I'd also like to get around to quantum entanglement in the near future.--Bayes^infer 20:52, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Bayesian inference

I have just changed my user name from SJIHAS to Gauss, inspired by your user name! Let me explain. When I first ran into you (at that other place; you remember ....) I had heard of the name Bayes related to statistics, and wondered "Oh my God, could this be THE Bayes?" So I looked him up. Off by a few hundred years. First, I admit that statistics/probability is not my strong suit. I'd heard of the name, but knew nothing further. Second, given that I didn't know what century he lived in, it's not that far-fetched. If I saw someone named "Nash" writing about equilibrium, it would be possible that it's the real John Nash.

Anyway, it seems probable (with probability 3.14159265358979 percent) that you chose that name as an homage to a hero of your field of interest. I wanted to change my user name to something more fitting to the things I want to write about, so I'm paying homage to Karl Friedrich ... Gauss 16:55, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, you never know...I could be the ghost of the Rev. Bayes, at last finding eternal peace in the bowels of the interwebz. Glad to have another legend in here with me. Was Maxwell an option for you? That's what I would have predicted (with a Gaussian prior, obviously). Man, I'm a dork.--Bayes^update 19:48, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

But I laughed...so at least you are in good company. tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 19:49, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Please have a look at Category_talk:Science (and put it on your watchlist if it isn't already.) In particular, it would be good if you could contribute an article on relativity. It seems that you've just done essays on reactionary abuse of it, but not an article on the topic itself. Do you want to collaborate with me on this one?

Oh, and Maxwell's cool, but Gauss is awesome. "But father, you've added up the numbers wrong." Gauss 13:13, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Sure, I'll take a look. I wouldn't mind eventually putting together something about quant. mech. also, since that gets a ton of abuse as well.--Bayes^update 14:31, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

This weekend I've been thinking about writing an introduction to relativity, and I have become totally psyched! I've got several handwritten pages so far. Nothing to show you yet. The goal is to write an article that is

• rigorously correct in its treatment
• intuitively correct in its presentation
• appropriate for high-school-age people and interested but not expert adults.

I'll put up a sandbox in the next few days. Gauss 17:37, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Cool! You know, I've done a little bit of thinking...one area that would help make a relativity article sort of unique to this site would be to include more in-depth stuff about the history of how it came about. Since some people (you obviously know what my Example #1 would be) dump on Einstein by accusing him of ripping off others, and in addition don't understand that relativity is something that falls out of, say, electrodynamics in addition to mechanics, it would be interesting to include some history of science details in addition to the scientific details. If you haven't seen it already, you might want to check this out. It's a pretty impressive intuitive demonstration of how relativity works.--Bayes^update 22:38, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I've started typing in the relativity stuff, in User:Gauss/sandbox. My handwritten stuff goes well beyond that, but what's typed in is a start. The web site you cited is amazing. But it doesn't put me completely out of business. In the later parts of my article, I will talk about Michelson/Morley and Lorentz/FitzGerald, etc. I also want to give the most straightforward possible correct derivation. I think I struck the right tone in the theory of garbage. Gauss 21:54, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Hoorah for you sir!

Like you, I am a conservapedia refugee. I went over there with a positive intent iniatially to debate with them concerning Liberal bashing and the literalness of the Bible. Got banned for daring to question TerryH's authority. The Anti-Conservapedia 18:31, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Sounds pretty similar to the experiences of many people there. It bothers me that they aren't very willing to debate what they advocate. Yeah, they're trigger-happy over vandalism, and maybe they have a right to be. But when the procedure for responding to anyone who disagrees with any of the crazy statements made at CP is

1. Pejorative use of the word "liberal," since that word has, to them, become synonymous with deception and stupidity.
2. Dismissal of the opposing view, without any sort of reasonable discussion.
3. Ignoring the user who voiced the opposing view.
4. Bannination of said user.

This type of pattern has occurred time and time again.

Number 1 is the one that concerns me the most. History is riddled with all kinds of examples of what happens when one group begins to dehumanize the other (and given some of the comments made by the CP sysops, I don't think "dehumanization" is an exaggeration when it comes to them describing political/religious opponents.)--Bayes^update 22:50, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

You've got balls.

Just saying. Good callin' out on Andy on the main page :-).-αmεσ (!) 23:15, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

What's he gonna do? Make a call to the ederal ureau of nvestigation?CЯacke® 23:27, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I wonder if the Eff Bee Eye has an office to deal with subversive "Posting good-faith opinions on wikis that anyone can edit." And now I guess I'm full of deceit, with my e-mail correspondence stated as proof. Well, now I'm going to post that e-mail (coming soon!). You can be the judges.--Bayes^update 10:49, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Not that it's necessary to prove TK's a lying tool. He's been proven at that ages ago. --Kels 12:37, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but until teh Colbert Report resumes tonight I have no other source for political comedy :-/. Post!-αmεσ (!) 13:49, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

speed of light

thank you sir, very much, for your efforts. human^{be in} 03:20, 2 October 2007 (EDT)