Talk:Missing dollar paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was to keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 03:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation Confusing
So people get mixed up between the $3 the ladies got back and the $2 in the waiter's pocket. Happens all the time. Most people figure this kind of thing out and say "how could I have been so stupid." Seems like a rather involved explanation, which will only confuse people. I summed it up in one line at the end of the article.24.64.223.203 00:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Clarity in its worst form...?
It is interesting how clarity has been proposed on this article, resulting in malformed english version of simple engineering questions. What makes this article work is not the myriad of solutions and explanations, but: a) how the misdirection works; b)what is the proper way to analyze circumstances where conservation is an issue, and; c) how the presentation deflects away from the proper analysis.
I am not perplexed that there are, and will always be, repeated attempts to offer english language solutions, as folks' internal analysis will be as varied as personalities. But I would like to suggest that the explanations offered digress from the real value of the article.
Before I change these new rounds of amendments to the article, perhaps some discussion is worthwhile...
[edit] Clarity comes from solution paths without declarative points
It is interesting that the current verbiage for the 'solution' begins with and continues with declarative statements. It is these declaratives that could become a source for misdirection and confusion! I disagree that there is redundancy. The solution explanation and technique that disappeared relies on engineering and/or accounting principles; the "solution path", i.e., the proper solution path, is what should be emphasized by the article, not just the fact that any number of equations can be written which may or may not be wrong.
[edit] (moved comment to bottom)
I think that it's too redundant, explaining the same things several times. I say go ahead if you think you can make it better; remember, be bold! | AndonicO Talk ยท Sign Here 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
