>>12924587>No one was talking about "the best way to present Bertrand's Box".Yes, I agree, no one was talking about the best way to present it.
>They were talking about a different problem altogether, and how it workedYes, including, but not limited to, the extent to which OP relates to Bertrand's Box. You in particular like to talk about that, quite a bit.
>and YOU were the one interested in phrasing it in such a way as to eliminate all perceived ambiguitiesNot all, but yes.
>that everyone else just worked around.>everyone elseAt least half of the posters in these threads aren't "working around" anything. They're criticizing it directly.
>It's fine if that's what you're interested in.I'm overjoyed that my interests have your blessing.
>You could even use /sci/ threads as some sort of statistical case study in what kind of phrasings produce what kind of resultsI certainly could, couldn't I.
>though with an undefined number of people pretending to be retarded every time I'm not sure what good that'll do you.That certainly would be something to consider, wouldn't it.
>But when people are talking about "the problem" in a thread about a probability problem, everyone else besides you is talking about that probability problem,No, I'm specifically talking about the OP. Most people are talking about the OP. Myself included. Some people, like you, are talking about a different, "platonic," problem. As you put it.
>and not the "problem" of how to properly structure a probability problem so as to eliminate ambiguities.It's fine if you're interested in rehashing ambiguous problems with more than one correct solution. You have my blessing.
