Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

Mostaque said there was probably another Euler blowup solution, possibly from Princeton, using physics-inspired neural networks, and that it probably had more practical use than the Navier-Stokes result.

Type INTERPRETIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 8480

28 words; atomic claims are usually under 25a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluablea comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 152 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 123, shared 28. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Not filed under any topic yet.

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8220 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 0 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 0 of 4 · stability LOW

Main unresolved issue: 1 counted evidence item has no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:1bff68cf-9206-8094-a5a3-85c6a4546e33

Not yet independently audited.This assessment depends heavily on modeling choices.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 0 of 4 review checks have been done.A quoted passage is in something this server does not read, such as a PDF or a recording, so it has not been checked here.

Related: NARROWS outgoing: Supported

Why?

Strongest counted support: The transcript attributes a further Euler blowup solution to a Princeton-associated effort using physics-inspired neural networks and says the speaker considered it potentially more practical than the Navier-Stokes result. weight 1.530000 evidence

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed, primary source reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Leans contradicted.

Hide calculation

0.8220 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 0 of 4 · stability LOW · 1 source, 1 independent lineage

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:852361181bb7a22de1eff7b495317f5aa1d08b7570be89db9a8a402ae2ca45d2

Last changed at entry seq 10669; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

LinkWorkingWeightCounted as
0d8d6476 support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 1 step, 1 − 0.15 × 1 0.850000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.530000 1.530000

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 1.530000 (the counted weights) = 1.530000 → probability 0.8220

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.7448 to 0.8796, a spread of 0.1348.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

None.

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

FromRelationshipTo
a4546e33NARROWSe0efb52c

Review checklist

Review checks: 0 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author. No independent review yet. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedno
opposing search doneno
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedno

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The transcript attributes a further Euler blowup solution to a Princeton-associated effort using physics-inspired neural networks and says the speaker considered it potentially more practical than the Navier-Stokes result. 07f34b56

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found none. 7ab1b00a

Review checks: 0 of 4. coverage:1bff68cf-9206-8094-a5a3-85c6a4546e33

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
8480APPENDED
8481ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
10668LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "1bff68cf-9206-8094-a5a3-85c6a4546e33",
  "links": [
    {
      "link": "22d1e907-1b84-8ec0-8128-57810d8d6476",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "30038ada-dde4-8466-be45-deed07f34b56",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.530000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "VIDEO",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.530000",
      "interpretive_steps": 1
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.1348",
    "permissive": "0.8796",
    "conservative": "0.7448"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "LOW",
  "claim_type": "INTERPRETIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.8220",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "1.530000",
  "snapshot_seq": 10669,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 1,
  "model_dependent": true,
  "review_coverage": "0.00",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "1.530000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 1
}