Talk:Gilbert–Shannon–Reeds model

A a good match for human shuffling?
I removed the following sentence: "has been reported to be a good match for experimentally observed outcomes of human shuffling", because there is no such claim in the cited source. The source indeed discus experiments on human shuffling (actually, only shuffles by two humans: the author and Reeds) in remark (e) on page 82, but never claims that the model have a good match for the outcome. Moreover, it only states the opposite (page 80): "As a model of shuffling it yields shuffles a bit "clumpier" than either shuffles of Diaconis or Reeds discussed in remark (e) bellow."

Unless I'm blind and missed something, there is no claim that support the deleted sentence. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)