Please don’t assume that every reader has read all the sequences or has the time to do so just to understand your comment.
A particular post was linked. The implied requirement of having to “read all the sequences” is an extreme distortion of the issue that makes your remark seem more relevant.
You’re right. “Has read a majority of the sequences so that there is a high probability that this specific sequence is among them” would have been more precise.
While it was an exaggeration “extreme distortion” seems like a harsh judgement.
Edit: oh sorry—I i didn’t mean to imply all the sequences are necessary for understanding. I’ll fix the sentence.
A particular post was linked. The implied requirement of having to “read all the sequences” is an extreme distortion of the issue that makes your remark seem more relevant.
You’re right. “Has read a majority of the sequences so that there is a high probability that this specific sequence is among them” would have been more precise.
While it was an exaggeration “extreme distortion” seems like a harsh judgement.
Edit: oh sorry—I i didn’t mean to imply all the sequences are necessary for understanding. I’ll fix the sentence.
Having to read the “majority of the sequences” is still an extreme distortion. It’s enough to have a look at the (single) linked post.
Yes I replied too fast to your comment. Already Fixed.