  vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
be10fc0b22
|
explained, with numbers: Chandrupatla wins the probe by REFUSING its model cheaply, not by trusting it — it accepts the interpolation on only 28% of steps, its gate costs zero evaluations (read from data already in hand) and its refusal branch still halves the bracket; ours repairs 77.5% of evaluations after the fact and drops to 0.92 halvings/eval on fun8/fun9, worse than bisection. In similarity terms: their similarity is a PRE-step GATE on dimensionless ratios (a neighbourhood of the linear configuration), ours is an IN-step SCALE on the residual magnitude — the PLACEMENT of the reading matters more than its form
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-20 23:05:22 +01:00 |
|
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
84ff1c796f
|
logarithmic march MEASURED and REFUTED: APS 6940 vs the published 2806 (2.5x worse), CHA 3115 vs the 2857 target, two sets 10414 vs <6026; the mechanism did work in the predicted direction (CHA 4516 -> 3115 = 1.45x) but the canonical set pays for it — the same trade that ended the four previous attempts, now measured for the transform too. Guarantee intact everywhere (over2x = 0)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-20 22:59:42 +01:00 |
|
|
vvsandClaude Opus 5
|
bf221531ac
|
findings: baseline reproduces on Linux (665 passed, all 72 paper numbers match) and the two admission gates are INCOMPATIBLE in their strict form — derived, no run needed: a march needs a RATIO of distances while identity needs an ABSOLUTE unit, and no parameter-free s gives both (this also explains why cbrt worked by accident). Fork A/B recorded for Valeri
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
2026-09-20 22:45:31 +01:00 |
|