lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Illusion of transparency

message: The Article is formatted very well. Its got A lot of information but It's short and to the point. I  mean that it could be expanded on many of your sections. I thibk for the examples their should be a way posted in Witch they deal with it.I like that you have a few other sites to check out that are connected with your topic  Jessierock4 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Illusion of transparency evaluation

message: I know you listed different studies on public speaking and the illusion of transparency.  Alhtough, I didn't see much else mentioned on how to cope with these problems.  Does required public speaking classes in college help, is it a permanant problem or something they can work out of?  A little more on Treatments would be a good addition.JMC554466 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit for Psych

message: I have found a few sources that might be relevant to this subject area. I am currently researching and preparing to update this page soon.
This article provides a good definition for Illusion of Transparency, something not commonly known. The information on the specifics of the tests done is a great reference and way to further explain and elaborate. Also, providing information on the key researchers makes the public aware of the continued study of this phenomena. There was a lot of information provided about stage fright, but it might help to add more information about other situations illusion of transparency crosses into as well. Interesting article, provides good references and sources as well as links to additional material and more on the research behind it. (AMJonesPT (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Upcoming changes

message: The "Experimental Support" section cites only a YouAreNotSoSmart blog post, rather than a published paper. As far as I can tell, this is actually where the purported numerical results of the 'experiment' come from, since the cited blog post doesn't cite any papers. The post doesn't even claim that this mysterious woman Elizabeth Newton, who is nowhere to be found on Google Scholar, is a psychologist. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's citation standards, but it seems this is a grievous issue that ought to be addressed by someone who knows what they're doing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grognor (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it was her PhD dissertation at Stanford. I've added a higher-quality ref saying so and added that context to the text. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Experimental Support

message: What is the difference between this page and [Curse of knowledge]? I guess we should merge them into one? Ooker (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illusion of transparency vs Curse of knowledge?
Talk:Misinformation effect

message: I added a bunch of sections, but all section headings that I created are bolded in the list? I don't know if I did something wrong, exactly, or what the situation is, but if someone can explain how to fix it, I would appreciate it.Justin.Hortin (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: — Assignment last updated by AngeAri (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

message: — Assignment last updated by Mack223 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Literacy in the Digital Age
Talk:Optimism bias

message: The article has a strong lead that clearly defines the term giving the reader a strong foundation on which to build should the reader be interested in further investigating the term while still refraining from giving too much information should the reader simply want to understand the term. I was very impressed by the verbiage that was used in the article and the articles ability to stay neutral. A change I would suggest to this article would be to add a cause section as this would help the reader understand how this condition comes to be and help the reader understand the rest of the material discussed in the article. I noticed the lead started to bring in concepts that were discussed in the body of the article and I think this can help a great deal in strengthening the article I am working on!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewlarsen (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-Review Letter 

message: Strikes me as odd that the most obvious example [to me] of this phenomenon, the 'addicted' or 'compulsive' gambler, is overlooked in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  And gambling?
Talk:Peak–end rule

message: Doesn't the experiment described in the second paragraph (painful noises versus painful followed by less-painful noises) tend to disprove the peak-end rule?  It's a shame there's no citation for it. 67.158.76.243 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

message: Just a thought regarding this. Within my hiking group we often joke about 'Hiker's Amnesia', which is the state that occurs after a particularly long and difficult hike. When you come off the trail you may swear to sell your gear and live the rest of your life in a chair, but as little as a week later when the next hike begins, you're right at the front of the line. --24.4.183.207 23:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Backpacker's Amnesia

message: I believe that is article is informative but vague. The information is backed up with a reference and an example on an experiment. In order for it to be reliable,it needs to be more descriptive with several credible sources. BwookeGlass (talk) --BwookeGlass 00:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluation for Psych 101

message: Kahneman et al have done more recent experiments, including the well-known colonoscopy examinations and the "immerse arm in freezing water" experiment, both confirming the effect. Tony (talk)  01:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs updating and expansion
Talk:Pollyanna principle

message: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100335215 <- This states that the term was coined in 1964, and in fact this paper mentions pollyanna and says "(e.g.,  a general  “pollyanna”  tendency  we  have noted  consistently in our earlier work)", which probably means he used this concept even before then. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of introduction
Talk:Selective perception

message: Man, this article sucks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.246.9 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

message: To the guy who required citation for the sentence "The result is somewhat similar to the placebo effect": dude, please lookup "placebo effect" first.  Here is a fairly good description.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.21.134 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placebo effect analogy 

message: For example, a teacher may have a favorite student because they are biased by in-group favoritism. The teacher ignores the student's poor attainment. Conversely, they might not notice the progress of their least favorite student.
I question whether this is an appropriate level of focus on flaws in the educational system. Quite apart from selective perception, nobody ever attains a fully balanced, calibrated opinion on a room full of thirty people—even more so when the domain of interaction is narrow and prescribed. 
How about an example of selective perception centered around the balanced interplay of an extended-family Thanksgiving dinner with 30 plates served? In which no-one has a favourite or disfavourite uncle. — MaxEnt 18:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational axe grinding 

message: Seems to be redundant with selection bias, there also are other similar articles.  —PaleoNeonate – 19:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jellycat98 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
Talk:Māori voting rights in Australia

message: I've moved this page back under the auspicies of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, for the following reasons:
* The article was originally created in Australian English.
* The article primarily concerns the politics of Australia.
* It is not accepted at all in Australian English to use a macron over words of Maori origin.  From my recent travels in New Zealand, it does not even appear to be particularly widespread there.
For this reason, I've moved it back.  I am however happy for a redirect to remain, as this will help it appear correct from any NZ pages that might link to this one.
Lankiveil 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with this article not using macrons. Australians get to decide how to spell words of foreign origin in Australian-related articles (within reason).-gadfium 08:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move 

message: In Australian English, is the word "Maori" pluralised as "Maori" or "Maoris"? In New Zealand, one refers to "many Māori" (prescriptively, if not in practice), but I was under the impression that an Australian would refer to "many Maoris" – correct me if I'm wrong. This may be somewhat trivial, but it seems a logical extension of the previous discussion. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either-or, really.  Maori words like "kiwi" are usually pluralised ("Kiwis"), but the word "Maori" itself would usually be accepted and understood either way.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluralisation of "Maori" in Australian English 

message: A merge tag (target: Māori Australians) was placed in March 2020. No edit summary; no discussion. I disagree. This topic is independently notable. The article, as short as it currently is, outlines that the voting history is quite interesting. As such, it makes sense to me to keep this as a separate article. I shall thus remove the merge tag. Be invited to disagree with me but if you do, argue your case here. Schwede66 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tag
Talk:Information-based complexity

message: It seems that www.ibs-research.org now advertises services for graduating students. 18 February 2017   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:84:A93E:8700:7097:BEE9:BF2D:44B8 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBC Website 

message: In the article the reader is deferred to a non-existent To Learn More section. --Natematic (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No '''To Learn More''' Section
Category talk:Eisner Award winners

message: I see that this category is for people who have won an Eisner.  Is there a category for works which have won an Eisner Award?  If there is, I'd like to add it to Fun Home. (Or someone else can — I'm not picky.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about works which have won an Eisner?
Talk:L-notation

message: Too confusing to me until I reached the, "When alpha is 0..." So here:
:L-notation is used for growth between polynomial and exponential growth with respect to the length of n.
--72.226.86.106 (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be accurate for the introduction? 

message: I struggled understanding this until I realized that the o(1) added to c represents any function whose limit is 0 as n approaches infinity. This follows from the limit definition of small-o:
f is o(g) means that lim_{x-->inf} f(x)/g(x) = 0
When, as in the present case, g(x) = 1, f is o(g)=o(1) requires lim_{x-->inf} f(x) = 0.
A relevant example of what this means is what happens when multiplying by a constant factor d:
d * L(alpha, c) = d * exp( ( c + o(1) ) ln(n)^alpha ln(ln(n))^( 1-alpha ) )
= exp( ln(d) + ( c + o(1) ) ln(n)^alpha ln(ln(n))^( 1-alpha ) )
= exp( ( c + o(1) + ln(d)/( ln(n)^alpha ln(ln(n))^( 1-alpha ) ) ) ln(n)^alpha ln(ln(n))^( 1-alpha ) )
since ln(d)/( ln(n)^alpha ln(ln(n))^( 1-alpha ) ) approaches 0 as n approaches infinity, it can simply be absorbed by the o(1), so that
d * L(alpha, c) = L(alpha, c)
Since L has to parameters, the article should discuss their respective impacts and in the same vein perhaps provide some rules of thumb on how minimization of each should be prioritized for the sake of science or of communication. (If that makes sense.)
L(1, c) = exp( ( c + o(1) ) ln(n) ) = n^( c + o(1) )
L(0, c) = exp( ( c + o(1) ) ln(ln(n)) ) = ln(n)^( c + o(1) )
L(alpha, c) interpolates between the two.
The following may be unfamiliar/nonobvious to some readers: ln(n) may represent the length of representation of a number n. When stating that "AKS is has polynomial complexity", it is implicitly understood to refer to a polynomial in ln(n), where n is the number to be tested. Otherwise, even naïve trial division by all integers smaller than n has "polynomial complexity" in n (i.e. at most O(n^3) or so, if division is O(n^2)).
Note that despite the two parameters, L notation is less general than big-O and little-o notation, although more "precise", since it bounds the function asymptotically from both sides. It simply does not cover functions that grow faster than polynomial with n. To cover exponential growth, I guess one could define something like:
L_e(alpha, beta, gamma, c) = exp( ( c + o(1) ) n^(alpha/(alpha+beta+gamma)) ln(n)^(beta/(alpha+beta+gamma)) ln(ln(n))^(gamma/(alpha+beta+gamma)) )
or, sacrificing the exp( ( c + o(1) ) ln(ln(n))^gamma ) part, just:
L_e(alpha, c) = exp( ( c + o(1) ) n^alpha ln(n)^( 1-alpha ) )
But this would still not cover fast-growing functions like n! and n^n.
Given the "notation abuse" issues with big-O (equality vs. set membership etc.), a clearer instruction on how to use L notation is warranted.
I am just scraping the surface of this topic, so I hope someone with the expertise will find my feedback useful for improving the article. Elias (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed
Talk:Schaefer's dichotomy theorem

message: I replaced the reference to the Bulatov-Dalmau paper with the reference to the Creignou-Hermann paper, where dichotomy result for counting boolean CSP appears first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.55.176.1 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s right. However, the section needs more reorganization: the Creignou and Hermann #SAT dichotomy is simply that the affine case is in P, and everything else is #P-complete. The stuff about Mal'tsev polynomials (which comes from the Bulatov and Dalmau paper) is only relevant for non-Boolean CSP’s, but then it is no longer a sufficient condition.—Emil J. 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a crack at this reorganization, splitting into binary and nonbinary paragraphs and citing the relevant paper in each. Erik Demaine (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Midtown, Toronto

message: I've never heard of Bathurst/St. Clair referred to as "Lower Midtown" - it is generally called Wychwood/Hillcrest (west side) or Casa Loma (east side) I agree it's one of the most diverse areas of Toronto however - particularly between Bathurst and Dufferin.
*
who are the dorks writing this stuff on Toronto. Too much time on your hands? Hands off the computer now!
No! you can only try to classify Toronto like New York to a certain extent.
Upper and lower, east and west side how ridicilous! 
Dindg Dong, Yorkville is not part of Midtown.
Midtown is at Yonge and Eglinton, and Yong and St. Clair.
Midtown (1910's, 1920's)  was at Yonge and Bloor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.15.41 (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. While I agree with the central point of that statement.... it was quite a rant! 76.10.147.176 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Who decided that the western boundaries are defined by Marlee Avenue/Oakwood Avenue/Ossington Avenue? I would think that Dufferin Ave. is the general western boundary. If we are to use a meandering path, let's at least provide references for it. 76.10.147.176 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Western boundaries

message: North Toronto being referred to as "Midtown" seems to be the work of realtors.  The city however has historically seen Midtown as being centered around Yonge and Bloor (including Yorkville, Queen's Park, etc.)
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/urbdesign/pdf/blooryorkville_final.pdf
Hotels around Yonge and Bloor often refer themselves as "midtown" to distinguish from around King and Queen.
The city's Central Area Plan referred to Midtown as basically University to Jarvis, College to Davenport.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docere1 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Yorkville does have a claim to the title Midtown
Talk:Fort Hall Indian Reservation

message: This topic merits a separate article. I plan to undo the redirect and start that article. Comments? Duff (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemhi Shoshoni
Talk:Manhattan Skyline (band)

message: I have added an "update" tag.  The article was substantially written in January 2007, and many of the statements are dated.  It would be great if someone could find sources for what, by now, has already happened or not happened. Shalom Hello 06:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Turing machine equivalents

message: I've revised the section on Wang machines to more-accurately reflect the content of Wang's 1957 paper.  Specifically, the paper introduced a variety of machines other than the B-machine (e.g., the W-machine).  Also, Wang explicitly stated that his principal purpose was to present a self-contained theory of computation that was, in its basic operations, more economical than Turing's theory -- practical computation per se was not the main consideration (as evidenced by the minimal instruction-sets and tape-alphabet), contrary to what some of the article's later comments seem to suggest.  (He wrote that it was his intention to present the theory "in a language which is familiar to those who are engaged in the use and construction of large-scale computers", thus encouraging a "rapproachement" between the practical and the theoretical developments. I believe the word "language" here simply refers to his expository diction, not to what we now call a "computer language".)  Lastly, I'm not familiar with what the article calls "Lee's W-machine", but it looks suspiciously like an erroneous reference to Wang's W-machine.  --r.e.s. 05:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to research. There really is a Lee's W-machine, but I can't rememeber off the top of my head where this comes from. (All these articles have needed another set of editorial eyes ... ). Bill Wvbailey 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wang machines

message: This article has a summary section and a main article link on Multitape Turing machines. We also have an article (listed in the template but not summarized here) on Multi-track Turing machines. 
I’ve no idea what the difference is, or even if there is one. Can someone who knows about these things have a look and comment? 
If they are the same, maybe the Multi-track TM and Multi-tape TM pages should be merged; if they're different, Multi-track TM should have a summary and main article link on this page. The template would need fixing in either case. 
Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-track/Multi-tape Turing machines
Talk:Turing machine examples

message: The statement 
It is used in the "multiply" routine, "a problem that cannot be solved by any finite-state machine"
in the first paragraph of the copy subroutine section
is completely confusing. Is appears to imply that 
multiplication cannot be performed using a finite T.M. which I believe is incorrect 
(I am not a computer theory scientist but otherwise it contradicts
the very idea of a universal machine modeling real computers). 
If in fact such a statement IS correct, it
should be given somewhat more discussion and preferably a hyperlink
to a wiki page with appropriate title
(even if such page does not exist or a two-sentence stub page is created).
This would both clarify that this is indeed what is meant and would address 
the natural disbelief.
If the above statement in bold is incorrect but such an incorrect judgement
was actually made by Minsky, this should be clarified/specified.
If something else is meant, this should be explained as now it is
completely misleading.
It would also be great to give a short informal definition of 
the "multiply" algorithm (or the corresponding problem) --
is it the problem of printing a product of two integers given those
integers?
:Yes, that is the multiply problem. It can obviously be done by Turing machines or any other universal machine. When Minsky said "finite-state machine" he probably meant a different, more limited model of computation (finite-state machine). But the quote was confusing so I removed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "multiply" is "a problem that cannot be solved"??? 

message: I know it might not seem as logical on the face of it (which is why I am putting this here rather than just changing it), but it seems to me that the state tables should be in the order of the 5-tuple (state, letter, next state, next letter, direction).  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  State table confusion 

message: There is no list of references in this article even though there are several references used.
Bradburyist (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of References Missing
Talk:Carry (arithmetic)

message: The dab page for borrow links here so it seems like a good idea to cover both carry and borrow in this article. It's unclear from the article whether a borrow is a type of carry or they are considered distinct operations, can this be clarified?--RDBury (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borrow 

message: This page treats the carry concept as if it was only a concept from elementary school mathematics pedagogy.  In fact, whether a child learns arithmetic using a traditional or a discovery-based math curriculum, they learn an algorithm for adding, and carry is the name for one element of this algorithm.  This page should begin with a definition with reference to this algorithm (in pencil and paper form) and then, in separate sections, discuss:  a) The pedagogical issues that divide traditional from discovery-based curricula with regard to this, the place of the carry bit (the carry in binary arithmetic) in digital logic circuit implementations of binary arithmetic (not mentioned at all here), and finally, c) the carry condition code in computer instruction sets.  Douglas W. Jones (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the body of the article is already pretty close to the plan you suggest. Maybe it's just that the lead section placed too much emphasis on the pedagogical aspect. I edited the lead to briefly summarize the other topics as well:  That done, I think it only remains to summarize more of the content of Adder (electronics) in the Computing section. Melchoir (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedagogy versus Mathematical Concept 

message: In Futurama Hermes has a calculator with a button labeled "carry the one"
if a novelty calculator were to implement such a function how would it operate?
Perhaps above the main number displayed a smaller group of numbers (carried) perhaps like a clipboard 
for such a calculator one does not type 786 + 457 and press "="
but instead how would one do the calculation on this novelty calculator?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.229 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture