3 ms·
They did mention this, but they didn't talk real numbers. And, my second point is (I think) slightly more subtle -- the probability distributions need to be con
by vessenes 11y ago
They did mention this, but they didn't talk real numbers. And, my second point is (I think) slightly more subtle -- the probability distributions need to be considered, not just the counting upward angle.
As I'm writing this out, I'm a little less sure that this would matter, but I'll leave the comment out for the sake of discussion. :)
- jlarocco 11y agoI don't know why you're nitpicking. The article's written for a more general audience that may be interested in the property, but not necessarily the nitty-gritty math behind it. The first paragraph of the article links to the paper, so people who want more detail can get it. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.03720v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.03720v1.pdf For your second point, I don't think there's anything wrong with a paper announcing they found something interesting, even if they haven't completely analyzed every aspect of it. Getting the info out early lets a wider audience look at it, and opens their current research up to scrutiny.