> This article had zero scientific conclusions (or in fact any science at all)
The article summarizes a piece of scientific work. The work itself does 3/4th of typical scientific work: 1) analyzes the current state of art (previous publications), 2) provides model and expected values, 3) analyzes observational data & deviations from the model. It falls short of 4) providing answer to the final ``why'' -- as the answer is still unknown to the authors. What it does _not_ lack is scientific honesty and integrity.
> To me it sounds like their math is the problem.
Indeed, that's what the article says. ``What their math can't apparently tell them is why so many different bike designs tend to stay upright.'' -- i.e., they haven't found the proper formula(s) yet. They don't blame a compiler (the math itself), but find the mathematical formulas they selected to be not sufficient for creating a complete model.
The article summarizes a piece of scientific work. The work itself does 3/4th of typical scientific work: 1) analyzes the current state of art (previous publications), 2) provides model and expected values, 3) analyzes observational data & deviations from the model. It falls short of 4) providing answer to the final ``why'' -- as the answer is still unknown to the authors. What it does _not_ lack is scientific honesty and integrity.
> To me it sounds like their math is the problem.
Indeed, that's what the article says. ``What their math can't apparently tell them is why so many different bike designs tend to stay upright.'' -- i.e., they haven't found the proper formula(s) yet. They don't blame a compiler (the math itself), but find the mathematical formulas they selected to be not sufficient for creating a complete model.
And your point was...?