Extended Comment on Language Trees and Zipping

This is the extended version of a Comment submitted to Physical Review Letters. I first point out the inappropriateness of publishing a Letter unrelated to physics. Next, I give experimental results showing that the technique used in the Letter is 3 times worse and 17 times slower than a simple baseline. And finally, I review the literature, showing that the ideas of the Letter are not novel. I conclude by suggesting that Physical Review Letters should not publish Letters unrelated to physics.

Abstract licence: CC0

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.