Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

Kinder garden... No comments...

And, yet you commented anyway.

[fromdownunder]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

Guys you talking like kids.. In short.. You guys splitting hair even more!
Do you think it will make any difference?? So naive.. Well I had to follow Randi letter and address it to Alison?? Volunteering secretary (I am not trying to offence any one)? great.. but I doubt Alison would be much of helps as she does what she told.. Randi told her close my file if i refuse 20 trials.. she done it.. Beside Alison when she got my email and I am sure she got it.. same as other chaps who got forwarded letter from Randi, could simply get in touch with me and say where and to whom I should apply even out of courtesy if there is any in JREF.. Or some one from them could reply to GzuzKryzt's letter with suggestions where I should apply.. NO? I don't make any sense again?? No.. than you will keep splitting hair even if will write to Alison and she will ignore it... than I will have to write to a cleanign lady there??

Pavel, I am afraid you are missing the point. When people work in a beaurocracy (even a relatively small one such as the JREF) a cc of a letter, or an email is purely "for information", not a request to respond. And people are busy. Before I retired, I rarely even carefully looked at cc emails, and certainly never responded. There was no need - I did not have the time, they were for information to be conveyed to me if I was interested.

It is not splitting hairs. Busy people do not go out of their way to create work for themselves, and you really need to understand that the JREF does not rotate about your personal world.

If you wish to reopen your file, the specifically write to the appropriate people, not with a cc, but a specific request to the person who was handling your challenge, and WHOM YOU PERSONALLY TOLD TO CLOSE YOUR FILE.

Norm

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Pavel, I am afraid you are missing the point. When people work in a beaurocracy (even a relatively small one such as the JREF) a cc of a letter, or an email is purely "for information", not a request to respond. And people are busy. Before I retired, I rarely even carefully looked at cc emails, and certainly never responded. There was no need - I did not have the time, they were for information to be conveyed to me if I was interested.

It is not splitting hairs. Busy people do not go out of their way to create work for themselves, and you really need to understand that the JREF does not rotate about your personal world.

If you wish to reopen your file, the specifically write to the appropriate people, not with a cc, but a specific request to the person who was handling your challenge, and WHOM YOU PERSONALLY TOLD TO CLOSE YOUR FILE.

Norm

And just to add,if you wish to send an email to multiple addresses ,you just specify them in field "To:" .

[GzuzKryzt]

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Pavel, I am afraid you are missing the point. When people work in a beaurocracy (even a relatively small one such as the JREF) a cc of a letter, or an email is purely "for information", not a request to respond. And people are busy. Before I retired, I rarely even carefully looked at cc emails, and certainly never responded. There was no need - I did not have the time, they were for information to be conveyed to me if I was interested.

It is not splitting hairs. Busy people do not go out of their way to create work for themselves, and you really need to understand that the JREF does not rotate about your personal world.

If you wish to reopen your file, the specifically write to the appropriate people, not with a cc, but a specific request to the person who was handling your challenge, and WHOM YOU PERSONALLY TOLD TO CLOSE YOUR FILE.

Norm

Good point with the cc, Norm. I had completely forgotten that.

All of these issues could have been avoided though if the following points would have been adhered to:

1. Send a registered letter.
2. Address is to the Challenge Administrator or his deputy.
3. In the letter, ask the recipient to forward the letter if improperly addressed.



Pavel, I think you could still do that.

And you haven't voted on your poll yet.

[pmurray]

I like the idea of using blank photos. How about this:

* 20 photos suitable for the test. All photos to be physically identical - same paper, same size.
** by "suitable", we mean that Ziborov agrees that the image in the photo is not blank
** Either Ziborov to supply the photos, in which case JREF must be satisfied that they are physically identical, or JREF to supply 30 photos and Ziborov to select 20 of them on test day.
* 20 blank photos physically identical to the 20 photos.
* 40 opaque envelopes big enough to fit a photo, labelled "1" through "40".

The blanks and the photos are put at random in the envelopes.
* the pile of photos is shuffled.
* for each envelope, a tester decides by coin toss whether to place a blank or a photo in it
* when either the pile of 20 blanks or the pile of 20 photos is exhausted, the remaining envelopes are filled with whatever remains

Ziborov's test:

* all envelopes start as "undetermined"
* a round proceeds as follows:
** the tester presents each undetermined envelope to Ziboriov
** Ziborov (does whatever he does) and states "photo", "blank", or "not sure"
** If "photo" or "blank", then tester records the envelope number and the determination and the envelope is "determined" and is put into a "determined" pile.
** if "not sure", then the envelope remains undetermined and is put into the "undetermined" pile (to be presented again in the next round, if there is one)
* (time limits? limit to number of rounds? Breaks?)

Marking:
* Each envelope is opened. For each one:
** If the photo within is blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "blank", then that is counted as as success.
** If the photo within is not blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "photo", then that is counted as as success.

Zabirov passes the test if he achieves ?? successes or more out of 40.

[GzuzKryzt]

Originally Posted by pmurray

I like the idea of using blank photos. How about this:

* 20 photos suitable for the test. All photos to be physically identical - same paper, same size.
** by "suitable", we mean that Ziborov agrees that the image in the photo is not blank
** Either Ziborov to supply the photos, in which case JREF must be satisfied that they are physically identical, or JREF to supply 30 photos and Ziborov to select 20 of them on test day.
* 20 blank photos physically identical to the 20 photos.
* 40 opaque envelopes big enough to fit a photo, labelled "1" through "40".

The blanks and the photos are put at random in the envelopes.
* the pile of photos is shuffled.
* for each envelope, a tester decides by coin toss whether to place a blank or a photo in it
* when either the pile of 20 blanks or the pile of 20 photos is exhausted, the remaining envelopes are filled with whatever remains

Ziborov's test:

* all envelopes start as "undetermined"
* a round proceeds as follows:
** the tester presents each undetermined envelope to Ziboriov
** Ziborov (does whatever he does) and states "photo", "blank", or "not sure"
** If "photo" or "blank", then tester records the envelope number and the determination and the envelope is "determined" and is put into a "determined" pile.
** if "not sure", then the envelope remains undetermined and is put into the "undetermined" pile (to be presented again in the next round, if there is one)
* (time limits? limit to number of rounds? Breaks?)

Marking:
* Each envelope is opened. For each one:
** If the photo within is blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "blank", then that is counted as as success.
** If the photo within is not blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "photo", then that is counted as as success.

Zabirov passes the test if he achieves ?? successes or more out of 40.

Obviously being unaware of the previous discussion: 0.02 $

Typing useless protocol: 0.43 $

Using three different names: Priceless.

[pmurray]

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

Obviously being unaware of the previous discussion: 0.02 $
Typing useless protocol: 0.43 $
Using three different names: Priceless.

Exactly what we've all come to expect. Blockquoting the entire post - well, maybe not proceless, but certainly good value.