Difference between revisions of "Talk:3254: Detector"
Rtanenbaum (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:Not necessarily. We are told that it never says "No" when it should be saying "Yes", which suggests that there will be no false negatives. If were trust that assertion. | :Not necessarily. We are told that it never says "No" when it should be saying "Yes", which suggests that there will be no false negatives. If were trust that assertion. | ||
:But we aren't given any assurance at all (even a simple nodding statement with no provability behind it) that the machine will not continue to say "Detected" even if it {{w|False vacuum#Existential threat|somehow really shouldn't}}. Should it do so, it would be be a false positive. Even though various other existential problems might be more important to anyone around who might care about it, at that point. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC) | :But we aren't given any assurance at all (even a simple nodding statement with no provability behind it) that the machine will not continue to say "Detected" even if it {{w|False vacuum#Existential threat|somehow really shouldn't}}. Should it do so, it would be be a false positive. Even though various other existential problems might be more important to anyone around who might care about it, at that point. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
| + | :My point is that there is no circumstance that the machine would exist where all of the items it detects are no longer present i.e. the case of a false positive just cannot happen. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 03:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:03, 4 June 2026
The deluxe edition of the machine probably has "Detected/Not detected" lights for each of those items. I would guess its cost would be significantly higher. 47.248.235.170 21:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Pat
To whoever wrote the initial transcript: the title text should not be included. Barmar (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't even detect a vacuum? Useless thing, showing not even a vacuous truth. 2A02:590:1402:2E01:102F:245D:DD57:1937 22:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
It also has zero false positive Rtanenbaum (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. We are told that it never says "No" when it should be saying "Yes", which suggests that there will be no false negatives. If were trust that assertion.
- But we aren't given any assurance at all (even a simple nodding statement with no provability behind it) that the machine will not continue to say "Detected" even if it somehow really shouldn't. Should it do so, it would be be a false positive. Even though various other existential problems might be more important to anyone around who might care about it, at that point. 81.179.199.253 23:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- My point is that there is no circumstance that the machine would exist where all of the items it detects are no longer present i.e. the case of a false positive just cannot happen. Rtanenbaum (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
