docs(numeric): correct why former_name exists -- the ladder was never published (Refs #2001) - #2012
Merged
Merged
Conversation
… published (Refs #2001) I justified former_name="GF-T{N}" by claiming arXiv:2606.05017 and arXiv:2606.09686 cite the old name. They do not, and the correction matters because it changes what the rename cost. 2606.05017 is the binary GF family; its source, docs/arxiv-submission/trinity-gf16.tex, contains zero occurrences of "GF-T". 2606.09686 is this catalog, and the only commit introducing an id=gft row is from 2026-08-09 -- mine. The ladder has never been published under either name. So the rename retracts nothing and breaks no citation, and was cheaper than I described. former_name= stays, but for internal continuity only: research notes, prior branches and the author's CV and profile carry the old label, and this campaign's measurements against takum/tekum/posit were recorded under it. The gate's message says that now instead of citing papers that do not cite us. Two other things in the same header. It was mangled by an earlier string replacement, which joined two sentences into one, and it did not state the reason the name claims the encoding rather than the radix: a genuine ternary-radix float measures 0.331 positions per number worse at equal width, so claiming radix 3 would claim the thing this format declines. Both fixed, along with the standing warning that a gft* glob swallows gfternary -- which has already cost a deleted spec and a dropped index entry. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
Contributor
|
📓 NotebookLM Notebook linked to this PR
This notebook contains session context, decisions, and artifacts for this work. |
gHashTag
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2026
Prop. 35 split one module's suite and gained a 2.9x deeper bound. Splitting the 20-property engine set the same way does not work, and why is the useful part. Each engine property isolated at -seq 80 with a 240s budget gave 8 of 20 proved. That reads like a depth map until you notice a_sanity is in the undecided group, and a_sanity is assert (bram_addr == bram_addr) -- a tautology, which has no depth. With a real budget the tautology proves in 276.2s and the hardest cross-layer property in 299.2s. Eight percent apart. At -seq 80 the engine costs about 280s to unroll and solve regardless of what is asserted; the 240s budget cut across that plateau and which properties landed on which side was near-arbitrary. The dichotomy: weight_prefetch_ctrl's cheapest-to-dearest ratio is 436x and splitting gained 2.9x depth; the engine's is 1.08x and splitting gains nothing. Splitting pays exactly when members differ in cost. Where one property dominates, isolating it removes the others from a shared instance. Where the model is the expense, splitting buys attribution and no depth. The diagnostic is one run: time a tautology. If a trivially true assertion costs what a real one costs, the model is the bottleneck. And "8 of 20 proved at -seq 80" is true while inviting the false reading that those 8 are deeper. All 20 prove given time. A partition produced by a timeout is a partition of the timeout, not of the subject. Suite 1213 passed, 0 failed. Seals 496/496. Closes #2012 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
|
📓 NotebookLM Notebook linked to this PR
This notebook contains session context, decisions, and artifacts for this work. |
Contributor
PR DashboardGenerated at: 2026-08-09 08:07:07 UTC
Summary
Seal Status
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The correction
I justified
former_name="GF-T{N}"by claiming arXiv:2606.05017 and arXiv:2606.09686 cite the old name. They do not.docs/arxiv-submission/trinity-gf16.texcontains zero occurrences of "GF-T"id=gftrow is684817eea, dated 2026-08-09. Mine.The ladder has never been published under either name.
Why it matters
The rename retracts nothing and breaks no citation, and was cheaper than I described it two commits ago. That is a materially different situation from the one I asserted, and it was load-bearing in the header text, the gate's failure message and the NOW entry.
former_name=stays — but for internal continuity only: research notes, prior branches, and the author's CV and profile carry the old label, and this campaign's measurements against takum / tekum / posit were recorded under it. The gate says that now instead of citing papers that do not cite us.Two other things in the same header
Both fixed, along with the standing warning that a
gft*glob swallowsgfternary— which has already cost this repository a deleted spec and a dropped pack index entry.Gates
🤖 Generated with Claude Code