Skip to content

Re-verify PCF note against arXiv:2508.01581v1 (2026-07-20): verified clean - #2

Open
OpenCnid wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
reverify/2026-07-20
Open

Re-verify PCF note against arXiv:2508.01581v1 (2026-07-20): verified clean#2
OpenCnid wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
reverify/2026-07-20

Conversation

@OpenCnid

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Re-verification: verified clean against arXiv:2508.01581v1 on 2026-07-20

Independent, source-first re-verification of density-chain.md against the pinned source (arXiv:2508.01581v1, submitted 2025-08-03; v1 is still the latest). Every number was studied at the arXiv v1 PDF this session — none from memory. No discrepancies found; verification date refreshed only.

Ledger — {claim} · {note said} · {source says} · {locator}

Claim Note said Source says Locator
OLS satisfaction coefficient 2.3370 (SE 0.004, t 589.442, CI 2.329–2.345) 2.3370 (SE 0.004, t 589.442, CI 2.329–2.345) Table 1
OLS intercept 2.9239 (SE 0.022, t 134.440, CI 2.881–2.967) 2.9239 (SE 0.022, t 134.440, CI 2.881–2.967) Table 1
OLS R² / adj R² 0.217 / 0.217 0.217 / 0.217 Table 1
OLS F / n / Durbin-Watson 3.474e+05 / 1,250,000 / 1.581 3.474e+05 / 1,250,000 / 1.581 Table 1
Spline intercept / Star_Level 3.1489 / 0.3122 3.1489 / 0.3122 Table 2
Spline basis coefficients 0.4011; 1.3377; 1.4408; 1.8278; 2.6972 0.4011; 1.3377; 1.4408; 1.8278; 2.6972 Table 2
Spline R² / F / n 0.297 / 1.408e+04 / 200,000 0.297 / 1.408e+04 / 200,000 Table 2
Tier CI level 99% (Tables 1–2 use 95%) "Descriptive + 99% Confidence Intervals" Table 3
5-star time / sat 22.0249 / 6.5675 22.0249 / 6.5675 Table 3
4-star time / sat 16.4997 / 5.3738 16.4997 / 5.3738 Table 3
3-star time / sat 16.4948 / 5.3759 16.4948 / 5.3759 Table 3
2-star time / sat 10.9785 / 4.6852 10.9785 / 4.6852 Table 3
1-star time / sat 10.9938 / 4.6868 10.9938 / 4.6868 Table 3
Tier separation three levels, not five: 4★≈3★, 2★≈1★, 1★ slightly > 2★ 4★ (16.4997/5.3738) ≈ 3★ (16.4948/5.3759); 1★ (10.9938/4.6868) > 2★ (10.9785/4.6852) on both Table 3
Adaptable vs non-adaptable condition declared; no statistic reported anywhere §2.2 declares the condition; no contrast is reported anywhere in the paper §2.2
Single-agent worked example 4×3×3×3×2 = 216 4×3×3×3×2 = 216 §2.3.1
Frameworks undergirding parameter system exactly two (topos, rough fuzzy); triad only in Abstract "Two primary mathematical frameworks undergird…" (§2.5); triad in Abstract §2.5; Abstract
Released artifacts github.com/cadavid1/PCF embedded "See GitHub here" link → github.com/cadavid1/PCF Abstract
Iterations per tier / scale 250,000 / 1.25M 250,000 per tier / 1.25M §4.2

Discrepancies: none — verified clean.

Changed

  • verified_against_source: 2026-07-19 → 2026-07-20 (frontmatter + index.json); index.json updated → 2026-07-20.
  • Provenance: appended the 2026-07-20 clean re-verification; the 2026-07-19 correction history is preserved untouched.
  • No note-body facts changed. Owner prose, the Murphy disclosure, and "Our take" are untouched.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…n, refresh date

Independent re-verification of density-chain.md against the pinned source
(arXiv:2508.01581v1). Every T1-T5 claim, entity-ledger locator, Key-results
value, Table 1 OLS / Table 2 spline / Table 3 tier descriptives, both R^2
figures (0.217 / 0.297), and the three-level tier collapse were reconfirmed at
the source. The absence of any adaptable-vs-non-adaptable statistic was
reconfirmed. No discrepancies found.

Refresh verified_against_source to 2026-07-20 in frontmatter and index.json;
append the clean re-verification to provenance while preserving the 2026-07-19
correction history.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant