sim-numerics

105 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags

2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5	b677283afc	Article: the similarity in the step is earned, not scaffolding; literature in place. S-ablation of A' (server): A' with each of the nine similarity functions in the step - tent 4443 on the paper protocol (13032 over 855 problems), the nearest other function e^-\|z\| 4988 (+12%; +9% over six corpora), quadratic ones 18410-18422 (+315%); ranking as the contraction law predicts; guarantee held with every S. The audit of section 7 rerun on the regenerated sweeps (APS unchanged: triple by shape -493 with the tent, +250 with 1/sqrt(1+z^2); defect -283 vs +215). Text: abstract and section 3 no longer call the similarity scaffolding - the tent making the step Newton's is a property of the similarity chosen; a paragraph in section 7 on the audit; Table 9a; new 8.6 'What is known, and what is new' - Lagouanelle (the order estimate of 7.1 / 10.5), Rall and Hansen-Patrick (8.1), the log-log slope / COC / ACOC (8.2, formula 6), Schroeder and Traub (the split 7 = false position on sign(f)\|f\|^(1/m)), Brent's acceptance condition (half), Dekker/Brent (tolerance step); what we found no counterpart for is the decision layer by similarity and analogy and the step set by a similarity whose form is decisive. References 13-19. verify_article: Table 9a, the percentages and the audit numbers added; server 446 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-21 21:22:41 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5	0ec7142baf	Two audits, both on existing data or traces, method untouched. (1) Where S is evaluated: only in the step length (and simpair, and two refuted modes); the slope gate, the triple by shape, the far end and 'defect' decide by comparing - which is a similarity judgment of the ordinal kind ('which is more similar'), where every decreasing S gives the same decision. Their gains depend strongly on the S in the STEP: triple by shape -493 with the tent, up to +250 with others; defect -283 with the tent, up to +215. The records are the pairing of the tent step with those judgments. (2) Valeri: 'similarity should solve the flat-family problem'. The similarity of two successive contraction ratios, min/max(rho_n, rho_n-1), was pre-declared as the detector; it FAILS and is inverted - AUC 0.28-0.42 flat against the rest, and 'the contraction did not speed up' fires more on APS (37.6%) than on the flat families (28.2%). The rho sequence shows why: on x^m the method runs a period-4 cycle - two Newton undershoots at exactly (1-1/m)^m (0.328 for m=5, 0.346 for m=9), one crossing, one nearly empty step (rho ~ 1) - so successive ratios are dissimilar, not constant. The safeguard is not the cause: the steps are as proposed. Candidate detectors suggested by the cycle are new hypotheses, not built. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-21 11:16:08 +01:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

vvsandClaude Opus 5

b677283afc

Article: the similarity in the step is earned, not scaffolding; literature in place.

S-ablation of A' (server): A' with each of the nine similarity functions in the step - tent 4443 on the paper protocol (13032 over 855 problems), the nearest other function e^-|z| 4988 (+12%; +9% over six corpora), quadratic ones 18410-18422 (+315%); ranking as the contraction law predicts; guarantee held with every S. The audit of section 7 rerun on the regenerated sweeps (APS unchanged: triple by shape -493 with the tent, +250 with 1/sqrt(1+z^2); defect -283 vs +215).

Text: abstract and section 3 no longer call the similarity scaffolding - the tent making the step Newton's is a property of the similarity chosen; a paragraph in section 7 on the audit; Table 9a; new 8.6 'What is known, and what is new' - Lagouanelle (the order estimate of 7.1 / 10.5), Rall and Hansen-Patrick (8.1), the log-log slope / COC / ACOC (8.2, formula 6), Schroeder and Traub (the split 7 = false position on sign(f)|f|^(1/m)), Brent's acceptance condition (half), Dekker/Brent (tolerance step); what we found no counterpart for is the decision layer by similarity and analogy and the step set by a similarity whose form is decisive. References 13-19. verify_article: Table 9a, the percentages and the audit numbers added; server 446 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-09-21 21:22:41 +01:00

vvsandClaude Opus 5

0ec7142baf

Two audits, both on existing data or traces, method untouched. (1) Where S is evaluated: only in the step length (and simpair, and two refuted modes); the slope gate, the triple by shape, the far end and 'defect' decide by comparing - which is a similarity judgment of the ordinal kind ('which is more similar'), where every decreasing S gives the same decision. Their gains depend strongly on the S in the STEP: triple by shape -493 with the tent, up to +250 with others; defect -283 with the tent, up to +215. The records are the pairing of the tent step with those judgments.

(2) Valeri: 'similarity should solve the flat-family problem'. The similarity of two successive contraction ratios, min/max(rho_n, rho_n-1), was pre-declared as the detector; it FAILS and is inverted - AUC 0.28-0.42 flat against the rest, and 'the contraction did not speed up' fires more on APS (37.6%) than on the flat families (28.2%). The rho sequence shows why: on x^m the method runs a period-4 cycle - two Newton undershoots at exactly (1-1/m)^m (0.328 for m=5, 0.346 for m=9), one crossing, one nearly empty step (rho ~ 1) - so successive ratios are dissimilar, not constant. The safeguard is not the cause: the steps are as proposed. Candidate detectors suggested by the cycle are new hypotheses, not built.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-09-21 11:16:08 +01:00