[rubidium]

After reading the original publication, the analogy to an iron bar is just confusing the point.

The article states: "Every time the outcome of a play of machine A ends in a reward, the bar moves to the left a specific distance, and every time the outcome ends in no reward, the bar moves to the right a specific distance. The same goes for a play of machine B, but the directions of the bar movements are reversed. After enough trials, the bar's total displacement reveals which slot machine offers the better winning probability." There's no locomotion reinforcement which can apply to the iron bar.

Something (either a physical mechanism or a guiding hand) needs to move the bar. Now the math of problem solving seems to still work out, but the mechanism of locomotion needs to be included in the system to get a proper description of the entropy at play.

[huxley]

Not to be too thick but wouldn't it seem like a banal point if instead of "iron bar" we were to say "measurement dial" and instead of "specific distance" we say "number of units on dial" and if instead of "left" or "right" we said "positive" or "negative".

So if we then say "after enough trials, the measurement dial's positive or negative reading tells us which slot machine offers the better winning probability", would that still seem like something worth publishing a paper on?

Or have I just totally missed the point?