By: DiEb

Just reading the paper: the analogy to the ''Wheel of Fortune'' made by Ewert, Dembski, Gaugert and Marks seems to be a misrepresentation of Wilf's and Ewens's approach. I don't say that the authors didn't understand the approach, the just don't know the rules of ''Wheel of Fortune'': given a world length of 20,000 and an alphabet of size 40, the ''Wheel of Fortune'' game would result in slightly less than 40 guesses on average per game...