Usually I agree with the moderating, but ...
7 comments
I'm not a moderator, but I flagged it because it's not a direction I want to see HN moving. "Ask HN" type posts are tricky --- I'm worried if we start by allowing posts that are intended solely as conversation starters, we may soon end up with a front page full of popular quotes, dumb jokes, and one-liners. Had it been a link to an external page I wouldn't have been moved to act.
It may also be that I just didn't get it. At a glance, it looked like a semantic game rather than a worthy paradox. Why should one presume that a multiple choice question has one and only one correct answer?
I was probably also influenced by the quality of the discussion. When I started reading, the top voted answer was "It is answerable... with a swift kick to the balls of the person asking it", followed by geek jokes about this answer. This didn't seem like a good start. Perhaps I should have flagged only this response, rather than the whole post.
It may also be that I just didn't get it. At a glance, it looked like a semantic game rather than a worthy paradox. Why should one presume that a multiple choice question has one and only one correct answer?
I was probably also influenced by the quality of the discussion. When I started reading, the top voted answer was "It is answerable... with a swift kick to the balls of the person asking it", followed by geek jokes about this answer. This didn't seem like a good start. Perhaps I should have flagged only this response, rather than the whole post.
I flagged it for similar reasons. It's not the kind of content I want to see on HN, the comments sucked, and it really wasn't anywhere near as interesting or clever as it seemed to think it was.
The very fact that that post had a lot of comments with, collectively, a lot of upvotes is proof that HN is not what it used to be. :/
The very fact that that post had a lot of comments with, collectively, a lot of upvotes is proof that HN is not what it used to be. :/
"It may also be that I just didn't get it. At a glance, it looked like a semantic game rather than a worthy paradox."
Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items?
"I was probably also influenced by the quality of the discussion."
Wouldn't down-voting the particular comment(s) you don't like be more appropriate?
Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items?
"I was probably also influenced by the quality of the discussion."
Wouldn't down-voting the particular comment(s) you don't like be more appropriate?
Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items?
Perhaps, but I don't think so in this case. The main reason I flagged it was not the 'paradox' but because it's not a direction I want to see HN going. If a rabbi and a priest walk into a bar, I'd flag it regardless of whether the punchline is hilarious. I'd agree that the moderator should take more than a glance.
Wouldn't down-voting the particular comment(s) you don't like be more appropriate?
I can't really assess 'appropriate', but it certainly wouldn't have been as effective. Knocking a 'funny' comment down from 16 to 15 points wouldn't have even been noticed, whereas using the flag to call it to the attention of a moderator for review had the effect I hoped for.
Perhaps, but I don't think so in this case. The main reason I flagged it was not the 'paradox' but because it's not a direction I want to see HN going. If a rabbi and a priest walk into a bar, I'd flag it regardless of whether the punchline is hilarious. I'd agree that the moderator should take more than a glance.
Wouldn't down-voting the particular comment(s) you don't like be more appropriate?
I can't really assess 'appropriate', but it certainly wouldn't have been as effective. Knocking a 'funny' comment down from 16 to 15 points wouldn't have even been noticed, whereas using the flag to call it to the attention of a moderator for review had the effect I hoped for.
> Perhaps more than a glance is appropriate before flagging items?
I don't know the submission volume of HN, but I'd guess it's sufficient that a glance is all one can afford.
I don't know the submission volume of HN, but I'd guess it's sufficient that a glance is all one can afford.
It might be argued that a glance is enough to move on and ignore it, but not enough to flag it. Flagging it implies that it's been assessed and found inappropriate, not simply that you didn't find it interesting.
To my mind it's the comments that should be flagged, not the item, if the item follows the guidelines but the comments don't contribute. I would like to see a small change to the site, wherein the "flag" link can be found on comments, no longer requiring clicking on "link" then on "flag".
A paradox is not an interesting thing; it's just a sign that your assumptions are wrong. But, it was not even an interesting paradox.
1) "random process" was undefined.
2) There was no limitation given as to choosing nothing or more than one answer.
3) At best the discussion might have been amusing, but that's just trolling IMO.
PS: I thought about it for a while before flagging it.
1) "random process" was undefined.
2) There was no limitation given as to choosing nothing or more than one answer.
3) At best the discussion might have been amusing, but that's just trolling IMO.
PS: I thought about it for a while before flagging it.
> A paradox is not an interesting thing.
> It's just a sign that your assumptions are wrong.
That's not true for unexpected results, which are often incorrectly called paradoxes, but it does seem to be true for real paradoxes. They have led to major innovations and advances in math.
The discussion I had with Ray was years ago now, and I don't remember the details, but I think you are mistaken in dismissing paradoxes as "just a sign that your assumptions are wrong."
Additionally, all the objections you raise can be clarified and the problem made more precise, losing the pithiness, but without losing the paradoxical nature. "Random process" can easily be defined clearly, and you can add the limitation about choosing exactly one answer.
[deleted]
At best you have proof though contradiction: http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.contradict...
For a basic paradox like "This sentence is a lie" there are more options than true or false. Other things are best answered with "your asking the wrong question" etc. But, once you walk though the basic options paradoxes are just another example of the same thing.
PS: Yellow void toe air zen bubble toy 4:72 PM lisa. Not all collections of words have meaning.
For a basic paradox like "This sentence is a lie" there are more options than true or false. Other things are best answered with "your asking the wrong question" etc. But, once you walk though the basic options paradoxes are just another example of the same thing.
PS: Yellow void toe air zen bubble toy 4:72 PM lisa. Not all collections of words have meaning.
"This sentence has no proof" (and add all the difficult bits about formal systems, what you mean by proof, and the containing of enough complexity to model arithmetic) is a paradox, and it's led to some very interesting mathematics. (I observe that Goedel said that any true paradox could be used as the basis for an incompleteness theorem.) Yes, it's also led to a lot of cranks spouting huge amounts of nonsense, but that just proves that people will insist on misunderstanding things, and then loudly demonstrate their lack of understanding.
Paradoxes in the true mathematical sense are useful in mathematics, and I thought that many here on HN would find that they sufficiently provoke their intellectual curiosity to be regarded on topic.
However, clearly you disagree, so clearly we disagree. I found the submission interesting, the discussion less so, and wish the inappropriate comments had been flagged/killed to allow the interesting and contentful discussion to flow. That's not what happened.
People complain that HN has jumped the shark, and the submissions are of poor quality. Personally I think it's the inappropriate comments that are dragging HN down, the insistance by so many to add largely content-free and insight-free comments. And yes, I admit that I've done it too.
PG says that the greatest threat to HN isn't the poor quality of submission, but the poor quality of comment. Perhaps submissions should die less often, and comment be killed more often.
Perhaps not. I don't have solutions, but I do know that this submission was a paradox, and that some true paradoxes are of interest and use in formal mathematics. Others aren't - it would be interesting to know if this is the former, and that's what I'll be exploring with some of my colleagues over the next few days.
Paradoxes in the true mathematical sense are useful in mathematics, and I thought that many here on HN would find that they sufficiently provoke their intellectual curiosity to be regarded on topic.
However, clearly you disagree, so clearly we disagree. I found the submission interesting, the discussion less so, and wish the inappropriate comments had been flagged/killed to allow the interesting and contentful discussion to flow. That's not what happened.
People complain that HN has jumped the shark, and the submissions are of poor quality. Personally I think it's the inappropriate comments that are dragging HN down, the insistance by so many to add largely content-free and insight-free comments. And yes, I admit that I've done it too.
PG says that the greatest threat to HN isn't the poor quality of submission, but the poor quality of comment. Perhaps submissions should die less often, and comment be killed more often.
Perhaps not. I don't have solutions, but I do know that this submission was a paradox, and that some true paradoxes are of interest and use in formal mathematics. Others aren't - it would be interesting to know if this is the former, and that's what I'll be exploring with some of my colleagues over the next few days.
I found the submission interesting, the discussion less so, and wish the inappropriate comments had been flagged/killed to allow the interesting and contentful discussion to flow.
Good reply, and good points. It's probably a better paradox than I thought at a glance.
But while one doesn't want to throw out too many babies with the bathwater, at least with fruit trees, it's often better to prune too much than too little. You might get less fruit this year, but you end up with a stronger tree and better root system.
In this case, I think the better solution would be to make a page about the paradox, and link to that. It's hard to know, but I think a more fully fleshed out blog post about the paradox might have produced better discussion.
Good reply, and good points. It's probably a better paradox than I thought at a glance.
But while one doesn't want to throw out too many babies with the bathwater, at least with fruit trees, it's often better to prune too much than too little. You might get less fruit this year, but you end up with a stronger tree and better root system.
In this case, I think the better solution would be to make a page about the paradox, and link to that. It's hard to know, but I think a more fully fleshed out blog post about the paradox might have produced better discussion.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are proof though contradiction which as I said can be interesting. (Or I should say they are part of the set of proofs though contradiction.) However, the paradox is not interesting it's just paradox = bad assumption.
So, don't read to much into Gödel, you also can't prove 1 + 1 = 2 except by making an equivalent assumption. Yet, that does not mean what you think it means.
PS: I don't think HN has jumped the shark, but I do try and keep it clean. IMO, it was fairly close to the acceptable line but to close to the HN equivalent of a funny cat photo, (hey look a paradox how cute), but a longer post taking about a well defined paradox and it's implications would have been acceptable and had a much cleaner discussion.
So, don't read to much into Gödel, you also can't prove 1 + 1 = 2 except by making an equivalent assumption. Yet, that does not mean what you think it means.
PS: I don't think HN has jumped the shark, but I do try and keep it clean. IMO, it was fairly close to the acceptable line but to close to the HN equivalent of a funny cat photo, (hey look a paradox how cute), but a longer post taking about a well defined paradox and it's implications would have been acceptable and had a much cleaner discussion.
I scanned the comments for the dead item, and I definitely found the topic interesting. It might not be in the Top Ten Interesting HN Posts Ever, but it was significantly more interesting, for example, than many of the dull, repeat-articles about, say, Facebook or the iPad, that do not provide me with any useful information re: hacking and startups, nor satisfy my intellectual curiosity.
But that's just my opinion.
But that's just my opinion.
I feel like we should give the moderators benefit of the doubt on this one. HN has been gradually shifting away from quality content, so any effort to correct that is kindly appreciated. Like any process, mistakes are occasionally made.
I flagged it. It can barely be described as a paradox, and the question itself didn't contain any useful analysis. It's a shame if insightful comments there didn't get the attention they deserved, but they weren't there at the time I flagged it.
Barely be described as a paradox? What does this even mean? Is the state of paradox not binary? As was stated it could lead to great discussions, the foremost of which in my mind would pertain to GEB and fans thereof. It was a Socratic approach to initiating discussion, and in your mind this warrants flagging?
It was a whimsical observation; a welcome break to my day. To censor that post was cynical, anal retentive and a total waste of a mouse click on the part of the censor. Shame on them!
[deleted]
It would have made more sense if you started by treating the subject line as a given proposition assumed to be true.
With the weighing so much to the disadvantage of URL-less posts any comment in this thread about preserving the 'quality of the homepage' is moot. The only page where this would gain significant traction is on the 'ask' page, on the homepage it would be gone pretty quickly.
As a rule I limit my flagging to spam, for the most part the voting system works ok, most of the time.
And with RiderOfGiraffes penchant to pose interesting logical problems I think he should get the benefit of the doubt before hitting the 'kill' button.
As a rule I limit my flagging to spam, for the most part the voting system works ok, most of the time.
And with RiderOfGiraffes penchant to pose interesting logical problems I think he should get the benefit of the doubt before hitting the 'kill' button.
In the interests of disclosure, it wasn't I that submitted it. I was just surprised and sorry to see it go.
Given the poor quality of the comments perhaps I was less surprised than I might've been, but as I've said elsewhere, I just wish the bad comments had been flagged, not the submission.
Given the poor quality of the comments perhaps I was less surprised than I might've been, but as I've said elsewhere, I just wish the bad comments had been flagged, not the submission.
Wow, this was pretty heavy handed.
I wasn't aware that users could kill posts like this. How many users does it get to do this? On Stack Overflow, it takes 5 users to vote to close a question, and even than the question is still visible.
I wasn't aware that users could kill posts like this. How many users does it get to do this? On Stack Overflow, it takes 5 users to vote to close a question, and even than the question is still visible.
I can't even see the original multiple choice question. What was it?
If you choose an answer at random, what is the probability of being right: A:25%, B:50%, C:0%, D:25%.
If I'm stated to be picking an answer at random, in what sense am I choosing?
This seems like an observation about either pointers or Meta-questions. If I pick an answer to {an unspecified thing}, what is the probability of being right?. Choose A/B/C/D.
First, I have to assume the {unspecified thing} is your question itself. Then model a clone of your question, then based on the answers to the clone model, answer your real question. Then I have to make some assumptions about the biases in my random selector (i.e. it has none and picks each option on average 25% of the time). Then I have to make some assumptions about whether one of the answers is right and three are wrong, or if more than one can be right.
If I assume one is right and three are wrong, then A and D are ruled out, so the right answer must be B or C. C can't be right, so it must be B, so my chance of picking "B" and getting the right answer is 25%. So I answer your real question either A or D.
If I assume that A or D could be right, then I assume B and C are wrong and get a 50% chance of picking correctly, so I answer your real question B.
I guess I could carry on and say "if no answer is right and I always pick one of the four, then I have no chance of answering correctly and answer your meta-question with C" and then see if I can sum up all the potential assumption answers and see if it resolves to a most likely sum-over-histories style answer.
But that sounds like work.
This seems like an observation about either pointers or Meta-questions. If I pick an answer to {an unspecified thing}, what is the probability of being right?. Choose A/B/C/D.
First, I have to assume the {unspecified thing} is your question itself. Then model a clone of your question, then based on the answers to the clone model, answer your real question. Then I have to make some assumptions about the biases in my random selector (i.e. it has none and picks each option on average 25% of the time). Then I have to make some assumptions about whether one of the answers is right and three are wrong, or if more than one can be right.
If I assume one is right and three are wrong, then A and D are ruled out, so the right answer must be B or C. C can't be right, so it must be B, so my chance of picking "B" and getting the right answer is 25%. So I answer your real question either A or D.
If I assume that A or D could be right, then I assume B and C are wrong and get a 50% chance of picking correctly, so I answer your real question B.
I guess I could carry on and say "if no answer is right and I always pick one of the four, then I have no chance of answering correctly and answer your meta-question with C" and then see if I can sum up all the potential assumption answers and see if it resolves to a most likely sum-over-histories style answer.
But that sounds like work.
And I wondered why my brilliant answer got ignored: "use a weighted 4-sided die that comes up "B" half the time. So B is correct."
If I'm stated to be picking an answer at random, in what sense am I choosing?
I can't tell if you're trying to be serious and adding something to the discussion, or if you're just being snarky. I'll assume you're being serious.
Selecting an answer at random, in my dialect of English, can be said to be choosing. In my dialect of English "to choose" does not necessarily imply the exercise of free will and decision.
Thus, "to choose at random" makes sense, and might be regarded as "to select at random" without any implication of a deliberate decision (except the decision to follow the random "choice").
Does that answer your question?
Selecting an answer at random, in my dialect of English, can be said to be choosing. In my dialect of English "to choose" does not necessarily imply the exercise of free will and decision.
Thus, "to choose at random" makes sense, and might be regarded as "to select at random" without any implication of a deliberate decision (except the decision to follow the random "choice").
Does that answer your question?
I was being serious - if I answer based on "randomly" then I might get one answer, if I answer based on "thinking it through and trying to work something out", I might get another.
But I've expanded my reply so it's less relevant now. [edit: oops, or replied again].
But I've expanded my reply so it's less relevant now. [edit: oops, or replied again].
Can't all users see deaded threads if they just turn on [showdead] in their user profiles?
Thanks for the tip, just turned it on and now I can see the question. There must be a lot of HNers like me who don't know this, though.
I cannot understand the point of hiding deadened questions while still keeping the comments?
I cannot understand the point of hiding deadened questions while still keeping the comments?
I cannot understand the point of hiding deadened questions while still keeping the comments?
It makes sense to me. If the users flag & kill a link submitted by spammers, the spammers get no value from it because, by default, a spider won't be able to follow the HN page to the URL the spammers wanted to promote.
But keeping the comments helps users at HN get a feel for how the article was initially received.
It makes sense to me. If the users flag & kill a link submitted by spammers, the spammers get no value from it because, by default, a spider won't be able to follow the HN page to the URL the spammers wanted to promote.
But keeping the comments helps users at HN get a feel for how the article was initially received.
> I cannot understand the point of hiding deadened questions while still keeping the comments?
It's all about removing the visibility. If the story is hidden, so are the comments, and so there's no reason to [dead] all of the comments too. The only way to see those comments is if you have showdead on anyway...
It's all about removing the visibility. If the story is hidden, so are the comments, and so there's no reason to [dead] all of the comments too. The only way to see those comments is if you have showdead on anyway...
That is not exactly true. When I browsed to the link given on this post with showdead off, I was still able to see the comments, which is weird.
What I meant was, without the direct link, you wouldn't have ever seen the story, not that the page would have 404d.
"Unanswerable multiple choice question"
and it was here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1363393
There was a lively discussion, and it got lots of upvotes. That, of course, of itself does not mean it was on-topic, but the guidelines say:
This particular question was a great example of that last point. Treated carefully it can be used as a starter for paradoxes of all kinds, and self-referential discussions that can lead to correct and appropriate explanations of Goedel's theorems, recursion, formal systems and probability.
I will almost certainly now be using it in my next math club talk, and have already started discussions about it with colleagues in the local university math department.
So why was it killed?
Probably "the judges decision is final" will reign, but I'm annoyed at this one.