Abstract
Several remarks of Utada [1996] are in agreement with the points discussed by Varotsos et al. [1996a]. Simple examples show that Mulargia and Gasperini's [1992] main conclusion (i.e., that “VAN predictions can be ascribed to chance”) is not due to “ambiguities” of the VAN method, but to obvious mistakes in their calculation. These mistakes are also responsible for the paradox we revealed in the Appendix of Varotsos et al. [1996a]. The paradox (i.e., if we apply the procedure of Mulargia and Gasperini [1992], we “conclude” that the results of an Ideally Perfect Earthquake Prediction Method, IPEPM, can be ascribed to chance) vanishes after correcting some of their mistakes.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.