Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:47:59 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 08:11:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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? Yes Science is about proved things. If the experiment cannot be reproduced then we need to decide if to trust the authors. In most cases I trust articles that were published even without proofs but in this case there are reasons not to do it. > >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 No I supported GCP I did not support Vincent's claims. 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.