Skip to content

bench: amend Tseitin ladder registration — raise the 4x5 cap (mid-run) - #69

Merged
InauguralPhysicist merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
tseitin-ladder-amendment-1
Jul 29, 2026
Merged

bench: amend Tseitin ladder registration — raise the 4x5 cap (mid-run)#69
InauguralPhysicist merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
tseitin-ladder-amendment-1

Conversation

@InauguralPhysicist

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Mid-run amendment, recorded before any conclusion is drawn. No registered prediction is edited — only a timeout cap changes. A cap is an operational parameter, not a hypothesis; 4×5 produces the same number whenever it is produced.

What happened

case result
4×4 DONE — 429s, 95,516 resolutions (matches the previously banked figure exactly, via the budgeted-session path)
4×5 TIMEOUT at the 90-min cap — 452,569 resolutions at 4,959s, still climbing

Why change anything

The 4×N axis is materially slower at min = 4 than the rows=3 reference suggested. So the 3h caps on 4×6 and 4×7 are near-certain to time out too — spending ~6h producing lower bounds on the cheap axis while 4×5, the case that actually tests prediction 2, stays unmeasured.

tseitin_second_pass.sh waits on the ladder lock (4GB box — one heavy job at a time) and re-runs 4×5 with a 4.5h cap in the idle window before the ~05:57 reboot.

Standing of the predictions

Prediction 2 (1.3×–5× per 4×N step, ~20× = falsification): observed ≥4.74× and unfinished — a lower bound, not a measurement. The narrow band will be exceeded. Whether the two-axis story actually breaks depends on where 4×5 lands, and a lower bound cannot settle it. That is precisely why the cap was raised rather than the prediction reworded.

Prediction 1 unaffected — and note a timeout can still confirm it. It is a claim (5×5 ≥ ~1.9M resolutions), so a 5×5 that passes that figure without closing confirms it from below. Only a 5×5 that closes small could falsify it.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Recorded while the run is in progress, before any conclusion is drawn. No
registered prediction is edited; only a timeout cap changes. A cap is an
operational parameter, not a hypothesis -- 4x5 produces the same number
whenever it is produced.

4x4 closed in 429s at 95,516 resolutions, matching the previously banked
figure exactly through the budgeted-session path. 4x5 then exhausted its
90-minute cap without closing, at 452,569 resolutions and still climbing.
So the 4xN axis is materially slower at min=4 than the rows=3 reference
suggested, and the 3h caps on 4x6/4x7 will near-certainly time out too --
spending ~6h on lower bounds for the cheap axis while 4x5, the case that
actually tests prediction 2, stays unmeasured.

tseitin_second_pass.sh waits on the ladder lock and re-runs 4x5 with a
4.5h cap in the idle window before the ~05:57 reboot.

Prediction 2 standing: observed >= 4.74x and UNFINISHED, so a lower bound,
not a measurement. The predicted 1.3x-5x band will be exceeded; whether the
two-axis story breaks depends on where 4x5 lands, which a lower bound
cannot settle. That is why the cap was raised rather than the prediction
reworded.

Prediction 1 is unaffected and can still be confirmed by a timeout: it is a
>= claim, so a 5x5 that passes ~1.9M resolutions without closing confirms it
from below. Only a 5x5 that closes small could falsify it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@InauguralPhysicist
InauguralPhysicist merged commit 8d21769 into main Jul 29, 2026
1 check passed
@InauguralPhysicist
InauguralPhysicist deleted the tseitin-ladder-amendment-1 branch July 29, 2026 17:51
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