What do you folks make of this ?

[Rebel]

Completely bogus. One does not leave the keyboard position and go over to the numeric keypad to type a single digit (0). That is simply way "out there" in plausible explanations. A touch-typist, which most are today, is quite at home hitting the 0 on the top row of keys, without having to look down. I do it every day... On a laptop such a thing would not even be considered for obvious reasons, as well...

It more or less describes your problem. Don't ever throw a bone to the opposition, just call it "completely bogus", no matter what.

[andreio]

It more or less describes your problem. Don't ever throw a bone to the opposition, just call it "completely bogus", no matter what.

Oh please, give me a break. Not only it is completely bogus, it's really stupid as well. You are likely to have a better chance to win a lottery than for what you are suggesting to actually happen.

What are the chances that instead of just lifting your finger and just pressing a 0 you are about to move your arm across the keyboard to the numpad to hit the 0 there? Okay, let's exaggerate, let's say it's 1 to 10. You like to much coffee and it just happens your arm is there. Now, what are the chances you hit two keys at the same time and both will be registered? What a hell, let's say it's also 1 to 10! Okie dokie, what are the chances you actually do not notice that you typed an extra character? Let's make things easy, does 1 to 10 sound okay?! So, what is the chance of this series of unfortunate events to happen? (0.1)^3 = 0.001, which is 0.1%

99.9% it didn't happen, 0.1% it did. And this is with hugely exaggerated numbers. Yeap, you reached a reasonable conclusion . Math is just another form of witchcraft, better go with my gut feeling right?

[Kappatoo]

Sorry, but your conclusion is wrong. What you have calculated is the odds of someone who intends to type an 0 to end up having an 0 and an extra character in his code/text. This is very different from saying what are the odds that this is what happened in this particular case.
To illustrate: If the odds are as you say, then what are the chances that you find one such occurrence in the source code of a chess engine?

(I am not saying that these are the odds. I agree with you that the numbers you use are much too high.)

[andreio]

Sorry, but your conclusion is wrong. What you have calculated is the odds of someone who intends to type an 0 to end up having an 0 and an extra character in his code/text. This is very different from saying what are the odds that this is what happened in this particular case.

This is the argument Rebel is making. He (Rajlich) intended to type 0, but ended up with either ".0" or "0.", because otherwise there's no other logical explanation why he (again Rajlich) ended up with floating point number instead of an integer.

To illustrate: If the odds are as you say, then what are the chances that you find one such occurrence in the source code of a chess engine?
(I am not saying that these are the odds. I agree with you that the numbers you use are much too high.)

My intention was to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing is. Rebel acts as if this is a sure thing, but even with the best case scenario it's an unreasonable assumption. The actual odds are much much smaller than 0.1%.

[Kappatoo]

The only point I wanted to make was this: Assume that the probability of B [V types '.0' or '0.'] given A [V intended to type '0'] is 0.001. This neither implies that the probability of A & B is 0.001 (if only because there are many 'A-events'), nor that the probability of A given B is 0.001.

[Rebel]

Sorry, but your conclusion is wrong. What you have calculated is the odds of someone who intends to type an 0 to end up having an 0 and an extra character in his code/text. This is very different from saying what are the odds that this is what happened in this particular case.

This is the argument Rebel is making. He (Rajlich) intended to type 0, but ended up with either ".0" or "0.", because otherwise there's no other logical explanation why he (again Rajlich) ended up with floating point number instead of an integer.

To illustrate: If the odds are as you say, then what are the chances that you find one such occurrence in the source code of a chess engine?
(I am not saying that these are the odds. I agree with you that the numbers you use are much too high.)

My intention was to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing is. Rebel acts as if this is a sure thing, but even with the best case scenario it's an unreasonable assumption. The actual odds are much much smaller than 0.1%.

You have it wrong. Welcome to the forum by the way. The 0.0 case was used as a piece of evidence to proof Vasik copied Fruit's WHOLE time control code. If you are a programmer check out the analysis on: http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden.htm and notice the nonsense of that. And still there are people who keep pointing to the 0.0 oddity as evidence for code theft while only 0. or .0 can be proven and they ask for possible explanations which is fine. And when you are offered 2 explanations you have no right to say "Rebel acts as if this is a sure thing" because I never said so and did not give it any weight.

[hyatt]

Sorry, but your conclusion is wrong. What you have calculated is the odds of someone who intends to type an 0 to end up having an 0 and an extra character in his code/text. This is very different from saying what are the odds that this is what happened in this particular case.

This is the argument Rebel is making. He (Rajlich) intended to type 0, but ended up with either ".0" or "0.", because otherwise there's no other logical explanation why he (again Rajlich) ended up with floating point number instead of an integer.

To illustrate: If the odds are as you say, then what are the chances that you find one such occurrence in the source code of a chess engine?
(I am not saying that these are the odds. I agree with you that the numbers you use are much too high.)

My intention was to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing is. Rebel acts as if this is a sure thing, but even with the best case scenario it's an unreasonable assumption. The actual odds are much much smaller than 0.1%.

You have it wrong. Welcome to the forum by the way. The 0.0 case was used as a piece of evidence to proof Vasik copied Fruit's WHOLE time control code. If you are a programmer check out the analysis on: http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden.htm and notice the nonsense of that. And still there are people who keep pointing to the 0.0 oddity as evidence for code theft while only 0. or .0 can be proven and they ask for possible explanations which is fine. And when you are offered 2 explanations you have no right to say "Rebel acts as if this is a sure thing" because I never said so and did not give it any weight.

If you don't give it any weight, how can anyone weigh it? I would claim there is at least a 90% probability that the 0.0 was simply copied. The other explanations are down in the <1% range, and there are probably a few other implausible explanations that would fill it out to 100%. For example, an erroneous global find and replace. You keep saying "only 0. or .0" can be proven is simply wrong. There are several possibilities.

0.
0.
0.0
00.
.00
000.
.000
0.000

etc. 0.0 is the leading candidate by a signficant margin...

And one could make the case that he might have typed "1.0 - 1.0" which the compiler would have folded into 0.0...

And all of those explanations, added together, are down in the <10% range. Exactly where is debatable. If they were likely, one would find an extraneous 0.0 or .0 or 0. in other chess programs. None to date.

[Rebel]

Sorry, but your conclusion is wrong. What you have calculated is the odds of someone who intends to type an 0 to end up having an 0 and an extra character in his code/text. This is very different from saying what are the odds that this is what happened in this particular case.

This is the argument Rebel is making. He (Rajlich) intended to type 0, but ended up with either ".0" or "0.", because otherwise there's no other logical explanation why he (again Rajlich) ended up with floating point number instead of an integer.

To illustrate: If the odds are as you say, then what are the chances that you find one such occurrence in the source code of a chess engine?
(I am not saying that these are the odds. I agree with you that the numbers you use are much too high.)

My intention was to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing is. Rebel acts as if this is a sure thing, but even with the best case scenario it's an unreasonable assumption. The actual odds are much much smaller than 0.1%.

You have it wrong. Welcome to the forum by the way. The 0.0 case was used as a piece of evidence to proof Vasik copied Fruit's WHOLE time control code. If you are a programmer check out the analysis on: http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden.htm and notice the nonsense of that. And still there are people who keep pointing to the 0.0 oddity as evidence for code theft while only 0. or .0 can be proven and they ask for possible explanations which is fine. And when you are offered 2 explanations you have no right to say "Rebel acts as if this is a sure thing" because I never said so and did not give it any weight.

If you don't give it any weight, how can anyone weigh it?

You did, calling it nonsense.

For me, I don't care how that typo occurred, his cat might as well walked on the keyboard. Point is, the decompile was wrong, 90% code wise does not fit and introducing 2 bugs into 10 lines of alleged copied code hardly is worth the term accusation. Any Longer...

[andreio]

It wasn't a typo. Is it reasonable to assume you'll win a lottery next week? No?! Then why is it reasonable to assume it is a typo when the odds are practically the same? There is a difference between "could have" and "would have". You can basically explain everything by could. It could have been Justin Bieber who typed in the . when Rajlich was getting a cup of coffee. Reasonable? Of course not. If it wasn't a typo what was it then? Just use some common sense...

[Rebel]

It wasn't a typo. Is it reasonable to assume you'll win a lottery next week? No?! Then why is it reasonable to assume it is a typo when the odds are practically the same? There is a difference between "could have" and "would have". You can basically explain everything by could. It could have been Justin Bieber who typed in the . when Rajlich was getting a cup of coffee. Reasonable? Of course not. If it wasn't a typo what was it then? Just use some common sense...

Common sense (at the time) told me the same, 0.0 was a clear sign of verbatim copying, actually the best example. And I am quite happy you (still) see this as evidence (proof?) for verbatim copying. It just shows its importance and the effect it had on many people.