I’m not sure that the conclusion follows from this paper.
I haven’t checked all the math, though.
[Update a while later]
Isn’t it funny how a common word can start to look really weird, even foreign and meaningless, when you see it enough times?
24 thoughts on “An Irreproducible Result”
Comments are closed.
You can’t argue with the ”Mighty wall o text”, the paper is right.
Sorry, I was too chicken to read it…
Really, though, either the very first or very last word (depending on your particular belief system) of the paper should have been…egg.
Kept looking for ‘and rice’. And with a simple search and replace function one could become a master’s theses generating giant. Arglebargle arglebargle…
“I’m not sure that the conclusion follows from this paper.”
Hey, this has been peer-reviewed; the science is settled.
You are correct. There is an error in the logic. It is at “chicken” in the second section.
I’ve been Chickrolled!
Looks like the original might have been something on file encryption or coding… Only skimmed it though. I was too chicken to dive any deeper.
Been there. Done that.
= Late night grad school.
Hmmmm, chicken!
This paper is a turkey. The author will have egg on his face soon.
Looks like output from an existing program to do this:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
You are correct. There is an error in the logic. It is at “chicken” in the second section.
So, chicken-in chicken-out.
So that explains the taste of frog legs.
This should never have passed peer-review. The only results here are an obvious corollary of the work in Egg Egg Egg: Egg Egg, which came first.
“I’m a chicken hawk, and you are a chicken!”
I tried to deal with this subject in college but the professor couldn’t keep track of the footnotes. He said Ah should have kept mah citations numbahed foah just such an emuhgency.
For those of you who found the paper a bit hard to follow, there is this helpful presentation on YouTube:
Chicken Chicken Chicken
“The boy what wrote this, he’s about as sharp as a bowlin’ ball.”
Obviously encrypted. You just need the proper key…
Rubber, rubber; rubber rubber rub her rubber.
It’s actually a pretty good guide to “climate science” or (as Feynman put it) “cargo cult science.” It has all the trappings of real science, and looks and sounds like real science, so pretty often make the mistake of thinking that it is real science. Ergo chicken.
The paper’s conclusions will never fly.
I’ve been wondering if CERN’s FTL neutrinos are a reproducible result.
You were wondering. Of course time travel is possible. See, did it again.
If you can keep half of them in the air, does the conclusion have less weight?