View Single Post
Old 2017-11-30, 16:32   #8
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

24×61 Posts
Default

My principal concern lies with the fact that probably nobody will audit the results ever.

In other words if (for example) the gap 1382 lies somewhere among the 6e18 and 10e18 and we have let it slip then when someone does find it at a higher range and an exhaustive search is done this find will go as a CFC, when it might simply be just a simple gap without much significance i.e. the second (or worse third) occurrence of a specific gap.

Of the many elements mentioned by Robert S I can only comment this.

As to the intentional forging of data I truly don't believe that to be a major concern. There is almost no benefit in doing that. Any record will be checked by both Robert S and (presumably) Dr. Nicely and checking this is very easy to do. So, only the intentional omission of a find could be done without the chance of being found out. But what benefit would that do to the culprit?
The other comment by Robert S does seem to be more pertinent.
The lack of a centralized data repository

I hope something can be done about this.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote