vvs/sim-numerics
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
23 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags
883076545411990364eeadbc86cc9cd2db453bbb
Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5 8830765454 §3.1 and Tables 2-3 of the canonical .md brought to current data (Valeri's request). §3.1 said the projection's doubling 'is not a tuning constant' and that zero slack 'behaves as bisection'; both are refuted by measurement (stage12 part 3, rerun as measure_budget_factor.py): the canonical total is 2806 for every multiplier >= 1.25, but the wide-bracket total moves monotonically, 2752 at 1.25 to 4006 at 4, and multiplier 1 costs 4817/2997, nowhere near bisection's 7530/3090. So the proposed safeguard is the EARNED projection (credit, C0 = 1 bit: bisection + 1 step, the cheapest endowment within that promise, 8395 -> 7658 -> 6588), as code and verifier had already fixed but no text said; the scheduled projection stays as the one-constant end of the trade. The text says openly that this choice was made after a question, and that it was not made for the numbers - on the canonical set it costs 762 more. 
Tables 2-3 regenerated from sweep_full.json by tables_for_md.py with the verifier's own ranking: Chandrupatla's method, missing from both, is FIRST on the canonical set (2785) and second on the wide-bracket set (2423); the proposed rule is 29th (3568) and 10th (3020); Brent 2889/4099 (was 2890/4101). The abstract, §5 text, §5.1, §5.2 (timed configuration named), §7 (records 2527/2523 are under the scheduled projection: 2523 flat for every multiplier 1.25-4, 2527 becomes 2541 at 1.25; under credit the readings give far less, best constant-free total 6494 by 'defect'), §8.4, §8.11 and the conclusion now say so: parity with the tuned methods at the price of one constant, or a constant-free rule with a tighter guarantee that trails on the canonical set. verify_article.py: 279 checks, measured tables recomputed from fresh runs; 762 tests pass twice.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 08:03:21 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 de1f8f726d The new sections move into the canonical text, article/sim_numerics.md (Valeri's decision): section 7 'Where the similarity is read' with 7.1 per-place similarity, 7.2 the decision place, 7.3 the fun7 scoring artefact, 7.4 the gap decomposition; negative results 8-11 appended so items 1-7 keep their numbers; abstract paragraph; Future work rewritten (the refuted log transform removed); item 6 now says aps.13.00 is a scoring artefact, not a method failure. Translated into the .md's revised names: code 'ratio' = the tent max(0,1-|z|), code 'rational' = the ratio similarity 1/(1+|z|); the proposed method stays the .md's (tent, 3-point, projection). 
Found on the way: negative item 'log change of variable' compared 3474 with 4516, the total of a DIFFERENT configuration; the honest pair is the same configuration in x, CHA 3643 -> 3474, APS 5822 -> 6940. Fixed in both texts. The gap-decomposition numbers were only traced to saved logs; they are now RECOMPUTED by verify_article.py from fresh runs of the diagnosis scripts (which return their values): 216 checks OK on Linux, 762 tests pass twice.

Open, for Valeri: the .md still says the projection's doubling is 'not a tuning constant', which simroot/pure.py (project_credit) refutes and which is why the .tex proposes credit; the .md's Tables 2-3 predate Chandrupatla's own method as a baseline (2785 APS, first place), so its 'parity' abstract is out of date; Brent 2890/4101 in the .md against 2889/4099 in the current sweep.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-21 07:48:55 +01:00
vvsandClaude Opus 5 4a23aacf96 baseline: the published sim-numerics artifact as it stands (490 tests, verify_article.py checks all 72 paper numbers against sweep_full.json) 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-09-20 22:38:17 +01:00