<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Serial numbers on Lugers were deliberately confusing</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2019/03/serial-numbers-on-lugers-were-deliberately-confusing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2019/03/serial-numbers-on-lugers-were-deliberately-confusing/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 14:29:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alistair</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2019/03/serial-numbers-on-lugers-were-deliberately-confusing/comment-page-1/#comment-2760835</link>
		<dc:creator>Alistair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.isegoria.net/?p=44677#comment-2760835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The tanks is True. AFAIK.

However, less well known, is that you can further estimate confidence intervals for the total N using the second and subsequent highest serials taken.

You generate likelihoods for each of nth serial holding its observed value, for a suspected total series of N. The binomial can be used to do this easily - what is the pdf that n-1 out of N serials will occur in a series of trials with P(success) = (n/N). The subsequent series of likelihoods for each n can then be summed for every value of N to get its overall distribution. 

This gives you a much tighter estimate of N; I haven&#039;t seen the trick commented upon yet, but it seems obvious and doesn&#039;t throw away information.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The tanks is True. AFAIK.</p>
<p>However, less well known, is that you can further estimate confidence intervals for the total N using the second and subsequent highest serials taken.</p>
<p>You generate likelihoods for each of nth serial holding its observed value, for a suspected total series of N. The binomial can be used to do this easily &#8211; what is the pdf that n-1 out of N serials will occur in a series of trials with P(success) = (n/N). The subsequent series of likelihoods for each n can then be summed for every value of N to get its overall distribution. </p>
<p>This gives you a much tighter estimate of N; I haven&#8217;t seen the trick commented upon yet, but it seems obvious and doesn&#8217;t throw away information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kirk</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2019/03/serial-numbers-on-lugers-were-deliberately-confusing/comment-page-1/#comment-2760458</link>
		<dc:creator>Kirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2019 16:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.isegoria.net/?p=44677#comment-2760458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think what Dunlap is referring to &quot;never having solved&quot; are the details like &quot;who made it&quot;, vs. total numbers produced. The three-letter codes on German small arms, like byf, indicated which plant and company made the weapon, but the full details of which code applied where...? Still somewhat confusing. There&#039;s an entire book out there devoted to this stuff, and the full production code set is still somewhat obfuscated for some items and factories, from what I understand.

Tanks were pretty easy--There were only a couple of factories. Small arms? Holy hell, but everyone with a machine shop was producing parts, which would get assembled at different places, seemingly randomly. Friend of mine was a Mauser rifle collector, and if you talked to him about his collection, it didn&#039;t take too long before your eyes would start glazing over as he went over all the little variations. He had a goal to have every single variant of Mauser rifle ever manufactured and issued by the Germans in WWI and WWII, and I think I remember him saying that would be something on the order of a thousand different rifles...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think what Dunlap is referring to &#8220;never having solved&#8221; are the details like &#8220;who made it&#8221;, vs. total numbers produced. The three-letter codes on German small arms, like byf, indicated which plant and company made the weapon, but the full details of which code applied where&#8230;? Still somewhat confusing. There&#8217;s an entire book out there devoted to this stuff, and the full production code set is still somewhat obfuscated for some items and factories, from what I understand.</p>
<p>Tanks were pretty easy&#8211;There were only a couple of factories. Small arms? Holy hell, but everyone with a machine shop was producing parts, which would get assembled at different places, seemingly randomly. Friend of mine was a Mauser rifle collector, and if you talked to him about his collection, it didn&#8217;t take too long before your eyes would start glazing over as he went over all the little variations. He had a goal to have every single variant of Mauser rifle ever manufactured and issued by the Germans in WWI and WWII, and I think I remember him saying that would be something on the order of a thousand different rifles&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
