A better interpretation of that paper is that it is giving an upper [edit: upper bound] on how inequivalent the models are. Also, that paper was subsequently s

A better interpretation of that paper is that it is giving an upper [edit: upper bound] on how inequivalent the models are. Also, that paper was subsequently shown to be fatally flawed. http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1264 http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1264 Anyway, yeah, a theoretical diversion.