Talk:3254: Detector

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)

Failing to detect states would be a particularly worrying prospect for people in the USA. --2A10:D586:3E93:0:CC7B:253E:A0AA:2FA9 08:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I would claim the assertion about false negatives is incorrect. It's impossible for a true negative to be displayed by the machine, so it's enough for a single malfunction that ever makes the machine display a negative to get a 100% false negative rate. 2A00:79E0:2820:8:9966:10CC:BAF3:62E 09:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)