First q: is Nathan’s paper worth writing about? A: yes. Not b/c Nathan said so… cont. /1
…but because Ivezic, Al Younger, Al Elder & others not quoted said issues were real /2
-
-
Diameter = 2*Radius => 100% off. The "paper" claims errors are 30% not 10%. Think.
-
The diameter/radius mixup is in one small section, not through the entire 100 pages.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
"Being critical": not taking at face value that confusing diameter & radius is okay /1
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.