Talk:Elevator paradox

MathWorld content

From the article:

MathWorld article by Eric Weisstein formed much of the basis for this article

That's not on -- can someone rewrite the article, please, if this is the case? CRC press own MathWorld, and they have been active in copyright litigation. Note that my cite of the Gardner article and the Japanese extlink were found by independent Googling, and do not derive from the MathWorld article. -- The Anome 16:31, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

MathWorld was a basis, yes. And I'm aware of the legal issues with them - but I was careful to not quote them directly, and also to use them as a source only - some of the information is my own conclusions. My understanding of copyright is that you can cite anything as a source - academics do this all the time. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. -- Pakaran 17:17, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree, we can cite anyone we like as a source of facts. However, we have to be extremely careful, given the previous MathWorld litigation, perhaps more careful than normal common sense demands. I have now rewritten this article to (I hope) eliminate even the slightest possibility that it was copied from MathWorld. -- The Anome 17:20, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good idea. As a co-moderator on the PrimeNumbers yahoogroup, I see perhaps more than I would like of people's opinions of the MathWorld publishers and their history. See my latest edit, and its summary, and let me know if you have concerns with it.

I'm also very aware that as a computer science major, I perhaps don't think about copyright in the context of natural-language work as much as I should - in my homework, I wouldn't hesitate to use an algorithm taken from some random internet source, for example. -- Pakaran 17:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your most recent edit looks good to me. Pehaps we should mention that the exit of the elevator from the "big bit" into the "little bit" is generally followed by an excursion in the opposite direction, which is not observed by the elevator user, since they have already left? (This is implied by and consistent with your statement, but not explicitly stated). -- The Anome 17:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Keep in mind that they may not have left (the original reason the physicists noted the paradox may have been that they were trying to visit one another, and return from doing so, but that the elevators appeared to be conspiring to frustrate this). I'm not sure how to phrase that for the article though. -- Pakaran 17:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Error

The article mentions that Moritz Stern and George Gamow first noted this paradox, so I added the centuries they lived in so people can have a general idea of when they first noted this paradox. Except it also goes on to say that they both worked in the same building at the same time, except the problem is that George Gamow was born ten years after Moritz Sterns death, meaning that they couldn't possibly have ever worked on the same building at the same time to discuss this paradox. Assuming that Gamow was able to think about paradoxes at the age of 20, and assuming that Mortiz could think of paradoxes in his old age of 93 years old, that still leaves a 30 year gap when these two men supposedly came up with this paradox. Which is a paradox in itself! JayKeaton (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another visualization is to imagine....

"Another visualization is to imagine sitting in bleachers near one end of an oval racetrack: if you are waiting for a single car to pass in front of you, it will be more likely to pass on the straight-away before entering the turn."

What direction is the car intended to be going? I can assume, but this needs work. --Test35965 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this still makes no sense. 96.35.4.134 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The best I can interpret the race track example:

A person sits down near one end of an oval race track, but on a straight, not on a turn. The person looks straight ahead in a line-of-sight perpendicular to the straight-away and waits for the first car to cross that line-of-sight at either the near or the far straight. In this scenario it is more likely that the next car will cross that line on the straight where the line-of-sight is just before the car enters the turn, simply because it is less likely for there to be car in the middle of that turn when one sits down, than on the rest of the track.

I have deleted the lines in question rather than try to fix it, but included this explanation in the hopes it will help anyone who wants to re-add it. 96.35.4.134 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

I don't know why we need this page. It really should be deleted. It's almost all citation needed and the topic is just a silly thought experiment that's mentioned in a couple popular science books so I don't see why it really requires a page. It's frankly the lowest quality page I've seen on wikipedia. 77.103.208.3 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wut?

so this is just 'Confirmation bias: the word problem', right? --2601:2C6:47F:985A:742B:69AD:22AD:B03B (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)