fabi/Sylpheed
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

re: a bank's wave 1 is not a filtered copy of wave 0 -- and my own discriminator cannot finish the job

Browse Source 
Coherence on BGM_103, the menu's bank, with controls run first: a real linear
filter of wave 0 reads 0.93-0.94 in every band, a different bank reads 0.001, and
wave 0 misaligned by 1 s reads 0.004-0.057. The measurement reads 0.027 at 1-4 kHz,
so the 'wave 1 is wave 0 filtered' model is refuted.

The frequency structure is inverted relative to any mic-pair or reverb model:
coherence rises with frequency (0.169 -> 0.827) while energy falls (71 % -> 0.2 %),
and a rear pair decorrelates fastest at HF. In the midrange the two waves are 13x
further apart than the two channels of one wave.

But the L-R control is what limits the tool and it is recorded as such: within one
wave, genuinely one performance in two channels, coherence is only 0.221-0.497. So
'same performance' does not imply high coherence here, my positive control was the
wrong model of the rear-pair reading, and the 🟡 is NOT settled. The tool tests for
linear filtering and neither surviving reading requires it.

Also corrects MISSION's Q10 row, which still carried the refuted three-sub-wave
premise and had directed work at a dead question for days. Its gate is in fact met.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-08-30 20:17:23 +00:00
parent 95ceb70cb5
commit 4dd6a3f325
5 changed files with 243 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
docs/re/REFUTED.md
View File

@@ -761,3 +761,31 @@ sweep phases — and the 350×396 logo ROI is **byte-identical across all of the
(0 / 138 600 px differing, max |d| 0), reproduced in two independent sessions**,
while 5–8 % of the whole frame moves as a contrast control. The sweep ink does
not land on the logos. The ±1–2 residual is not sweep.
### Music-bank stems (2026-08-30)
* ~~"wave 1 is wave 0 put through a filter"~~ — ❌ **refuted** on `BGM_103` by
magnitude-squared coherence. A real linear filter of wave 0 reads **0.93–0.94**
in every band (positive control); the measurement reads **0.027** at 1–4 kHz.
No linear filter does that in a band where both waves carry energy.
[data](data/bgm-stem-coherence.txt)
* ~~"the rear-pair reading can be tested by coherence"~~ — ❌ **refuted, and it was
my own test's premise.** The control that matters — L vs R *within* one wave,
genuinely one performance in two channels — reads only **0.221–0.497**, so in
this material "same performance" does not imply high coherence. A 4-channel
mix's rear pair is not a linear filter of its front pair, so the discriminator
never had the power to separate the two readings. The 🟡 stands.
### Refutation attempt on the corpus's "two stems of ONE PERFORMANCE" — 🟡 SURVIVED, WEAKENED (2026-08-30)
**Target:** `structures/bgm-two-stems.md` (the `BGM_103` section is another
agent's), which reads the two waves as two stems *of one performance*.
**My attempt:** if they are one performance, they should share signal structure;
coherence should be well above the independent floor across the bands carrying
the music.
**Result: the claim survives, but one of its supporting readings is dead and the
bands carrying 96 % of the energy read 0.169 and 0.184** — far above the 0.001
independent floor, so *not* independent, and far below a filtered copy. "One
performance" stands; "rear pair, i.e. a filtered view of the same mix" does not.