Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the origin and meaning of the 13/50 crime statistic?
Executive Summary
The three provided analyses collectively show that none of the supplied sources contain any information about the so‑called “13/50 crime statistic,” so its origin and meaning cannot be established from the materials you gave. Each analysis explicitly reports an absence of relevant content, leaving the claim unsupported by the provided dataset and requiring additional, specific sourcing before any factual conclusion can be drawn [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the supplied evidence comes up empty — and what that implies for the claim’s provenance
All three analyses independently conclude that the documents attached do not mention the 13/50 crime statistic, indicating the dataset you supplied lacks a primary source for that claim. One analysis describes a Stack Overflow thread about programming processes that produce no input or output and notes no connection to the statistic [1]. A second analysis similarly flags a Code Golf Meta discussion about "taking no input" with no relevant crime data [2]. The third analysis identifies a Java/Processing coding error thread unrelated to any criminal‑justice statistic [3]. Because none of the items even reference crime statistics, there is no evidentiary link in your materials tying the number “13/50” to a population, timeframe, geographic area, or methodology, and that lack of context makes the figure uninterpretable and unverifiable from these sources alone.
2. What the absence of primary context tells us about the figure’s reliability
When a claimed statistic appears without a supporting primary source in the supplied documents, the statistical claim is unverifiable and unreliable for explanatory or policy purposes. The provided analyses show the materials are technical programming threads rather than demographic or crime reports, which means the figure’s provenance could be anything from misremembered math, a misattributed citation, to a deliberately misleading talking point; the documents you gave do not allow us to distinguish among these possibilities [1] [2] [3]. Without basic metadata — who measured it, when, where, what population was counted, and how “crime” was defined — the number cannot be interpreted as a rate, proportion, ratio, or headline statistic, and it should not be treated as evidence in discussions about crime patterns.
3. How researchers and journalists would normally validate a statistic — and why those steps are blocked here
Validating a statistic normally requires locating the original report or dataset, confirming methodology, and checking whether peer reviewers, statistical agencies, or other credible outlets reproduce it. The three supplied analyses indicate none of the documents are of the type that could supply those validation elements: they are forum Q&A and code troubleshooting threads, and none include methodological appendices, author names linked to criminal‑justice research, or publication dates relevant to a demographic claim [1] [2] [3]. Because the necessary validation breadcrumbs are missing, standard verification steps — such as cross‑referencing government crime databases, academic papers, or reputable news investigations — cannot be performed using your current evidence set.
4. Alternative explanations consistent with the provided material
Given that the supplied documents are technical forum posts, a plausible explanation supported by the analyses is that the “13/50” figure was introduced elsewhere and mistakenly pasted or referred to in unrelated content, or that it is a shorthand from a different domain (for example, programming, versioning, or an internal note) misinterpreted as a crime statistic [1] [2] [3]. The analyses do not find any indicator that the sources were redactions or truncated excerpts of authoritative crime reports; rather, they indicate full topical mismatch. This pattern is consistent with a transfer error or misattribution during copying or discussion, which is a common origin for widely circulated but unsupported numeric claims.
5. Clear next steps to establish origin and meaning with confidence
To determine the origin and meaning of “13/50” you must provide or locate a document that explicitly ties that figure to a population, metric, and source. Useful evidence would include a link to a government crime report, a university study with tables and methodology, a reputable news story citing named sources, or an original statement from an organization that produced the number. The current materials do not contain that link, so the immediate step is to search for the earliest appearance of the phrase “13/50” in conjunction with terms like “crime,” “rate,” “percent,” or a geographic or demographic identifier; until such a source is produced, the figure remains unverified based on the supplied analyses [1] [2] [3].