Talk:Null result

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page could use correction -- from somebody who understands what the original author was trying to say. Possibly the author was not a native speaker of English. P0M

Contents

[edit] Comment from text

I am removing the following comment (not mine) from the article text:

<!-- 'Einstein did know about the Michelson-Morley experiment null result' ... see Wolfram's comment : http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html -->

—Kdau 00:31, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Just to follow up, see Annus Mirabili Papers - Special_relativity. Einstein was aware of experiments to detect the aether. Quote:
the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.

[edit] Nullus Resultarum

there's something fishy about that Latin. Is it perhaps actually nulla resultarum? --Iustinus 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think nulla is the proper term there, but I also take issue with the translation. Nullus is the singular and nulla the plural, so using 'nulla' would give 'nothings' as a result. Furthermore, a quick look around at various Latin online dictionaries turns up no matches for any form of resulta. Of course this means little to me as some of these same sites lack words I learned when younger. There is a verb, resulto, but it means to echo or rebound. Even so, -arum is an improper ending for a verb - it's the genitive plural of the first latin declension - so if we presume resulta is a little-known first declension noun, nullus resultarum would translate literally to nothing of the results which sounds kind of silly. Latin adjectives take the ending of the noun they modify so if resulta were an adjective it would be nullus resultus. That also sounds silly, but latin can be a silly language sometimes.
So I'm not sure where this came from, but I think it's rather inaccurate.
--Mr.Dave 04:42, 20 April 2006 (GMT)

[edit] "general" meaning?!

The claim that "Generally, a null result is a result which is null (nothing): that is, the absence of an observable result" is incompatible with the definitions as used in statistics, science logic and law; thus I doubt that it's correct. I'll remove it if it isn't backed up by a citation in the coming week. Harald88 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do so unless you have proper references to justify your change. --Philosophus 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Philosophus, obviously you aren't familiar with the Wikipedia rules: please read the Wikipedia rules for inclusion WP:OR, WP:V. What can't be traced must be deleted, especially when (as is here the case) it contradicts sourced information (even a banner exists to put attention to such defects). Harald88 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Err, I may have worded that poorly. Since that is the current definition listed, I meant that you shouldn't change it without having proper references for your replacement, since otherwise we would be in the same situation. Removing it without adding something in its place would be very difficult. Also, please take a look at other editors' contributions before accusing them of ignorance of policy. Unfortunately, my edits to the Aetherometry debate no longer show up, as the talk pages have been deleted. --Philosophus 23:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem in replacing this erroneous paraphrase by one that is based on the given definitions in the article, nor do I have a difficulty with the wording. But you're right (and I had not noticed yet) that nothing is sourced. I remember having seen a source (that's why I know which definition errs), and I'll try to find it back and include it. Harald88 06:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If this article were accurate...

... it would result in an unspecified program critical mass ejection error! -- Chris 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/l/Talk%7ENull_result_29f0.html"