Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bell's theorem: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:05, 26 June 2012 editF=q(E+v^B) (talk | contribs)4,289 edits archive extremley long terminated discussions← Previous edit Revision as of 22:21, 26 June 2012 edit undoF=q(E+v^B) (talk | contribs)4,289 edits →Lede: agreedNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:


*'''Comment'''. The old version of the lead is the consensus version. It has been stable for over 5 years, meaning that many editors have implicitly endorsed it (see ] and ]). If this were a vote, not only would we have the implicit consensus that already existed, but ''in addition'' it is two to one against the new change. FNS, if you want this to be included, then you have to make your case here and convince ''somebody else'' that you are right. ] (]) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC) *'''Comment'''. The old version of the lead is the consensus version. It has been stable for over 5 years, meaning that many editors have implicitly endorsed it (see ] and ]). If this were a vote, not only would we have the implicit consensus that already existed, but ''in addition'' it is two to one against the new change. FNS, if you want this to be included, then you have to make your case here and convince ''somebody else'' that you are right. ] (]) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

*'''Agreed:''' clearer becuase

::''"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics."''

:is as direct as it could possibly be, the other is more wordy. I just the last change by ]'s; the prosy comment for an edit summary ''"two people doth not a 'consensus' make"'' (WTF?) is meaningless - now its 3. I don't have time to keep eyes on WP right now though... ] ]] 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:21, 26 June 2012

WikiProject iconMathematics B‑class High‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject iconPhysics B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Lede

The version reverted to here reads more clearly for the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. The old version of the lead is the consensus version. It has been stable for over 5 years, meaning that many editors have implicitly endorsed it (see WP:CON and WP:BRD). If this were a vote, not only would we have the implicit consensus that already existed, but in addition it is two to one against the new change. FNS, if you want this to be included, then you have to make your case here and convince somebody else that you are right. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed: clearer becuase
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics."
is as direct as it could possibly be, the other is more wordy. I just reverted the last change by FormerNukeSubmariner's; the prosy comment for an edit summary "two people doth not a 'consensus' make" (WTF?) is meaningless - now its 3. I don't have time to keep eyes on WP right now though... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Categories: