CompRookie: Q for Cacarulo/Don

[MGP]

> OK, then, if Cacarulo is infallible, then why do his
> numbers in BJA3 not match his own previous numbers
> that are on bjmath to this day? Even a combinatorial
> analyzer can have shortcuts, misspecifications, or
> bugs. Having a second, independent researcher state
> identical results is part of the scientific process,
> and useful to other researchers. If you could bet your
> life against $1 million dollars that Cacarulo's
> numbers, as they appear in BJA3, are correct, I
> suspect that you would not take the bet.

Did you ask yourself how kc verified his numbers? Why don't you ask him?

[Magician]

> K.C. didn't PROVE anything; he simply reiterated the
> numbers that Cac furnished in BJA3. You don't PROVE
> results of a CA; you state them!

That's what Cacarulo did too! But two independent researches stating the same result is proof of a sort. Submitting the CA itself for verification rather than just the numbers would be even better.

> And, while it may
> be "helpful" to some of you if ten other
> people state their CA results, and they agree with
> Cac's, it really doesn't add anything to our
> knowledge, does it? :-)

No, and it wasn't intended to. Is that a requirement for posting here? CR asked for verification of a published figure, KC supplied it. Fair question, fair answer.