Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:11:28 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 07:57:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 04, 2002 at 07:15:42, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>On September 03, 2002 at 18:29:33, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On September 03, 2002 at 18:15:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 03, 2002 at 18:03:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>However reasonable your explanations may be, the gist of your DTS article >>>>>and the most important thing for comparison were the speedup numbers. After >>>>>what we discovered and what you just posted, it is clear that they are >>>>>based on very shaky foundations. >>>> >>>>How so? The speedup numbers were _directly_ computed by dividing times. >>> >>>But what times? Certainly not the times you reported. All we have is 5 >>>speedup numbers that nobody every reproduced and likely will never >>>reproduce due to the hardware involved. >>> >>[SNIP] >>> >>>I don't know if you faked the results to look better or not. Maybe I don't >>>want to know. But whatever be of it, there is little scientific ground >>>to keep them standing, IMHO. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>The times should have been included, since they are the raw data. Moreover so, >>since some "unconventional" rounding seem to have been done when computing >>the speedups. >> >>However, regarding "reproducible" and "faked" , how would the inclusion of >>the times make you happier? They wouldn't be more or less reproducible than >>the speedups, and they could very well be faked (which I don't believe). >> >>Please don't mix the issues of poor data presentation with the scientific >>intergrity of the work. >> >>Ralf > >Of course it was possible to fake also >times without mistakes that people >are going to find. > >The point is that we usually trust >scientists not to do it but we also trust them >not to report wrong numbers. > >After finding that the numbers about time >were wrong the trust is broken. > >I do not say that the speed up were faked but >only that I do not know what to believe and >I agree with GCP that there is little scientific >ground to keep them standing. It's sad to read such sloppy remarks, Uri. You don't know what to believe, but you agree that there is little scientific ground... Is this sound reasoning for you? NB this is not about creating or joining parties, it's about some basic questions in science and logic too. At the moment nothing is proven. Something is looking odd, but Vincent spoke of lies and fakes and mass fraud. Are you supporting such verdicts? Rolf Tueschen > >Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.