论文部分内容阅读
在我们以前的“答复”中已经指出了Mulargia等(1996)所犯的一系列错误(除了仅作为“认识阶段”查证他们的预报规则这一明显错误外,我们还证明了他们的“规则”不符合一个有意义的算法)。Mulargia等的“再反驳”承认Mulargia等(1996)确实因“代码中小缺陷”而犯了一些小错误,这样他们不但在其预报表中漏掉了两个“大地震”(EQs)(根据其规则未预报),而且把两个不够格的“大地震”划为成功“预报”。此外与他们原先的断言形成对比,现在他们承认Mulargia等(1996)的规则“必定不是一个很有效的预报手段”。我们的“答复”中的关键问题是为了指出对方在“再反驳”中给出的错误图示是一个非常严重的错误。他们混淆了主震预报与余震预报,因此错误地得出人们可以“建立非常简单、零成本、优于VAN的预报手段”的结论。本文证明对方的错误程序导致下面的自相矛盾:当一个“规则”(不能预报所有主震)准确预报了若干余震,就可以(不正确地)宣称发现了一种优于理想预报方法的预报“规则”;后者(理想预报方法)尽管预报了所有的主震,它却(错误地)被归为“随机预报”。
In our previous reply, a series of mistakes made by Mulargia et al. (1996) have been pointed out (except for the obvious mistake of verifying their forecasting rules during the “stage of cognition”, we also proved that their “rules” Not in line with a meaningful algorithm). Mulargia et al.’s “refutation” admits that Mulargia et al. (1996) did make a few minor mistakes due to “small defects in the code” so that they not only missed two “earthquakes” (EQs) in their forecasts Rules were not foreseen), and classified two unseen “great earthquakes” as successful “forecasts.” In addition to their original assertion, they now acknowledge that the Mulargia et al. (1996) rule “must not be a very effective means of forecasting.” The key issue in our “reply” is to point out that it is a very serious mistake for the other side to give a wrong illustration of the “refutation.” They confused the mainshock prediction with the aftershock prediction, thus erroneously drawing the conclusion that one could “create a very simple, zero-cost, better-than-VAN forecasting tool.” This paper proves that the other erroneous procedure leads to the following paradox: when a “rule” (which can not predict all mainshocks) accurately predicts a number of aftershocks, it can (incorrectly) claim to have found a prediction superior to the ideal forecasting method The latter, the ideal prediction method, was (erroneously) classified as “random prediction” in spite of the prediction of all the main shocks.