4 ms·
I guess I could see your interpretation, but it requires that you ignore all of the context of the paper. For instance, you take distribution to equal histogra
by bmm6o 13y ago
I guess I could see your interpretation, but it requires that you ignore all of the context of the paper. For instance, you take distribution to equal histogram. This may make sense in some contexts, but here it's absolutely not true; the values are supposed to be taken independently from some probability distribution.
Pro tip: if you think you've spotted a major problem in the first line of an abstract, maybe give the author the benefit of the doubt. Especially if you're not familiar with the field.
- buo 13y agoI take your point, I should have phrased my thoughts differently. I did start with "I think", but I could have made it clearer that I didn't mean to criticize the paper, but rather to invite explanations from people who know the subject better than I do.
- bmm6o 13y agoYes, it's always interesting how different presentations of the same basic idea are received. "Is X false?" gets a much different response than "why is X true?". It's good to keep in mind that the second one tends to elicit more helpful replies.