Reply to “Difficulty of statistical evaluation of an earthquake prediction method,” by H. Utada

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.