User talk:Ruud Binnekamp

Welcome!

Hello, Ruud Binnekamp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barzilai paradox

Barzilai paradox, an article that you edited, has been nominated for deletion. An editor does not feel that Barzilai paradox satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barzilai paradox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are otherwise free to edit the content of Barzilai paradox during the discussion but should not remove the Articles for Deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —SlamDiego_←T 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barzilai paradox

I suggest that you do some further reading including upon (but not restricted to) such topics as the strong independence axiom (aka “the sure-thing principle”), and the Arrow Impossibility Theorem. These will help to provide you with the intellectual infrastructure to reälize that there is indeed nothing about this supposed paradox that is both correct and original. —SlamDiego_←T 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, much appreciate it. The article will return as soon as it meets Wikipedia's requirements.Ruud Binnekamp (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but to do that the work would not only have to be published in a peer-reviewed journal of economics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, psychology, mathematics, or philosophy, but would have to then draw more attention than does the typical article in such a journal. —SlamDiego_←T 11:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you researched these topics yet? When you have sufficient backgorund, I will be quite happy to discuss the ostensible paradox further. —SlamDiego_←T 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment on my talk page there, so to keep the conversation together.Cretog8 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]