Comment by DeepDuh
13 years ago
One thing I found strange about his analysis is that he kept on looking for new approaches after he got an upper boundary of 6.6% for the style result being random. I'd have introduced a more realistic model and looked at whether it get's me below 3% and be done with it (probably). He seems to like analysis just for the analysis sake. Of course it's still refreshing to see after reading tons of today's superficial blogosphere blabber (Google has ALWAYS blocked WP!!!11! ... wait no, sry).
I don't think you can consider the stylometric result as yielding such an upper boundary; yes, that's some strong evidence against one possibility and in favor of another, but we could easily find some more evidence which goes the other way - and indeed did.
So, it may be an upper bound _ceteris paribus_, but ceteris is not paribus here.