Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2017 March 30

= March 30 =

Strategy for a peacock
I'm a peacock, and the other day, when I was about to spread my feathers to look strong, I realized that sending the message that you are strong is a sign of weakness. Then, I thought that the best way to look strong is not to spread the feathers. But again, if not spreading the feathers is a sign that you are strong, and sending a sign that you are strong is a sign of weakness, why should I do? --Dikipewia (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Peacocks and other animals are not capable of the sort of metacognition and theory of mind necessary to comprehend how their actions will affect the mental states of other beings. Your question is nonsensical, because the peacock doesn't strategize.  It has evolved a certain set of behaviors to allow it to thrive.  The evidence we have that it works is that the peacock exists.  -- Jayron 32 12:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * From the article you linked to, "An open question is if other animals besides humans have a genetic endowment and social environment that allows them to acquire a theory of mind in the same way that human children do.[1]". Your dismissal of the possibility of a theory of mind for animals is probably a bit premature.  But there is a serious flaw in the question -- namely assuming that it's a show of strength, or that's what the peahens are even responding to.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the null hypothesis should be held as true until such time as it is demonstrated not to be. "Open question", by definition means the null hypothesis is still held to be true.  -- Jayron 32 13:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh em gee. This is not a discussion forum and the question is not a mathematical one. Please do this somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion. Deacon Vorbis made a false statement.  I provided him with reading to understand why it was false.  There was no discussion.  -- Jayron 32 13:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * JBL, I thought so too, but the original question could be seen as a question in game theory.
 * And Jayron, nothing I said was false. I simply called you out for making a claim that animals don't possess the necessary theory of mind, without providing any evidence to support this claim.  (Oh, and yes, this is most certainly a discussion).  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, and to add to this, your mention of "null hypothesis" is inappropriate. Whether or not animals possess a theory of mind, and to what extent, is not a simple statistical relationship to be teased out of data.  "Open question" simply means that there's no consensus within the scientific community about it.  And on a side note, cut the condescending tone; it's rude and unhelpful.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof for any claim is on the person making the positive assertion of correlation. That's what the null hypothesis is all about.  To claim that a peacock has the ability for metacognition would require the person making the claim to have evidence of such.  There is no burden of proof on the counterclaim, the null hypothesis is sufficient.  In other words, to claim that one should not dismiss claims that peacocks have a well developed theory of mind is 100% backwards.  We should always dismiss claims that have no evidence to back them up.  We are not required to affirm such claims merely because they are made.  The null hypothesis is the response to any open question.  If it is an open question, we default to the notion that it is wrong until such time as evidence exists to the contrary.  We can't just say "well, you can't prove that peacocks don't have a theory of mind" as though that is sufficient.  You're making the positive claim, basic principles of standards of proof place the burden on the person making the claim.  Not on those who dismiss it.  I can claim that George Washington's ghosts shits rainbows, and claim that since you haven't produced his ghost to prove it isn't shitting rainbows, that it's an "open question".  Technically true, but ultimately since I made the positive claim, I have the burden of proof and not you.  We can't just assume that every asked question must be entertained as possible; on the contrary every asked question should default to "no" so long as we don't have positive evidence.  So, please don't assert that we should entertain the notion that peacocks can abstractly consider the frame of mind of others as being an "open question", since a) that's a misinterpretation of the source (which merely asserts that some non-human mammals have shown some evidence of some metacognitive ability) and b) it's an abuse of the null hypothesis.  -- Jayron 32 17:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To whom it may concern, this is a previous question of DV on the refdesk. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To make this a viable game theory Q, just replace peacocks with humans and use some other flirting behavior. The answer there is to do the flirting in a manner which can be seen as accidental.  For example, a person might tuck their hair back from their face, either as a flirting gesture or just to get it out of the way (of course, this requires long hair).  StuRat (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Or with iocane powder. We all know how that game theory problem ended.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Error in main diagram at Trigonometric Functions
Hello,

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this notice but it appears that the main (first) diagram in the article Trigonometric Functions is mislabeled. It currently has the opposite leg labeled as cosθ and the adjacent leg labeled as sinθ. I believe those two labels need to be switched.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeThotUWasAToad (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspect this isn't the best place to raise the issue, but I'm not sure what is, and I went ahead and fixed it (the problem was actually with Template:Trigonometry, and not the article itself). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you, for bringing it up and for fixing it. Fortunately it was only wrong for less than four hours. Loraof (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is fortunate although for about 20 minutes of those four hours it had me mightily confused. ;) Thanks for your prompt replies and thanks to all those who devote time to making Wikipedia so awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeThotUWasAToad (talk • contribs) 19:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you mean this File:Sinus und Kosinus am Einheitskreis 1.svg...? Well, it is correct: the blue side of the triangle, adjacent to the θ angle, has length cos(θ), and is described in blue, and the green opposite side has length sin(θ), which is written in green, respectively. --CiaPan (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is right now; but when the OP saw it, it was backwards. Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, you're right. I scrolled through the file history before to see what might have been wrong, but didn't notice the labels were in wrong order. Thank you for pointing that out. --CiaPan (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see Trigonometric Functions had 100,882 views in the last 30 days so those four hours have given about 560 people the fixed idea for life that the cos gives the ratio of the opposite side to the hypotenuse. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)