3254: Detector

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 21:10, 3 June 2026 by TheusafBOT (talk | contribs) (Created by theusafBOT: 3254)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision β†’ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Detector
No other experiment has a lower false negative rate.
Title text: No other experiment has a lower false negative rate.

Explanation

Ambox warning blue construction.png This is one of 44 incomplete explanations:
This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

Transcript

Ambox warning green construction.png This is one of 25 incomplete transcripts:
Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

comment.png  Add comment      new topic.png  Create topic (use sparingly)     refresh discuss.png  Refresh 

Discussion

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)
      comment.png  Add comment