24-04-2025, 01:38 PM
(24-04-2025, 01:32 PM)Urtx13 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-04-2025, 01:27 PM)oshfdk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-04-2025, 01:00 PM)Urtx13 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We’re not saying 1405 is “magic.” We’re saying:
When the system is configured that way, a strong structure appears. When you break that configuration, it disappears.
[font=.AppleSystemUIFont]That’s not about the seed — that’s about the fragility and specificity of the outcome.[/font]
That’s what makes it interesting.
I understand your perspective, but I think it takes some mathematical rigor and some understanding of the manuscript as a physical object to properly validate the specificity and significance of the outcome. I hope it's all in the paper, let's just wait for the publication. For now I can only make an estimation based on circumstantial evidence, and so far it doesn't look very convincing to me. Again, thanks for sharing!
Gosh... That is not subjective. That is data. And that is precisely why I ran the tests: to ensure that any claim is falsifiable and measurable, not intuitive. Data doesn't care whether it "feels right", it either holds or it breaks. That is why the tests were designed the way they were... You are going to find the same on Arxiv lol
Mathematical rigor? The analysis includes entropy metrics, LDA modeling, supervised classification, permutation tests, ablation studies, cross-checking...