> What I’m saying is “this relationship vanishes when you change units, so it must not be a coincidence” is a bad way to check for non-coincidences in general.
Yeah, it was a strange claim, which makes me think that the author may have had his conclusion in mind when writing this. I.e. what he meant to say may have been something more like:
"The relationship vanishes when you change units, which suggests the possibility that the relationship is a function of the unit definitions... and therefore not a coincidence."
Yeah, it was a strange claim, which makes me think that the author may have had his conclusion in mind when writing this. I.e. what he meant to say may have been something more like:
"The relationship vanishes when you change units, which suggests the possibility that the relationship is a function of the unit definitions... and therefore not a coincidence."