They also missed the theory that is shaped like a star, but without the extraneous nonsense in the middle. Which is exactly as simple as their preferred theory.
So I'm entering an argument over fictional evidence, which is already a losing move, but who cares.
Taking the convex hull of the observations is obviously the right thing to do!
If you asked a mathematician for the simplest function from a point set in the plane to a point set in the plane, they'd flip a coin and say either the constant function that's always the empty set or the constant function that's always the plane. But that's silly, because those functions don't use your evidence.
(Other constant functions are out, because there's no way to pick betwe...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.