(28-10-2026, 09:47 PM)npcompl33t wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. @Muaro -- my method got different results than Lisa's, but it based on a much broader uncertainty analysis. Some pages it simply is not possible to determine the exact ordering of. That was why i gave the error brackets. They say in their paper that there are several different possible orderings.
Yes, I'm aware you said the ordering is a proposal, not a certainty, and Lisa gave an explicit example of a different Q13 ordering in her paper (with a score just a little lower than the top scorer).
But, I find it striking that where a comparison can be made (Q13 and Q20), Lisa's and your published ordering are the same (but a reversed sequence and two bifolios switching place in Q13 (*)). It's too big a coincidence, if a coincidence it was.
(*) Btw, did anyone check if what I'm saying on the Q13 and Q20 orderings is true? I re-checked a number of times, but four eyes are always better than two.