Read the equation
The example sets the actual reference to two while both the representation and its prediction equal one. These chosen values make prediction agreement exact even though the representation is wrong relative to the reference. They are illustrative assignments rather than experimental observations.
Terms & definitions
| Term | Meaning in this source |
|---|---|
| r | Reference value 2 |
| z | Represented value 1 |
| z_hat | Predicted value 1 |
How it works
Read the definition from its right-hand expression to the quantity on the left. Its surrounding source records the intended input, state, or parameter context. Where the source leaves an operation unspecified, this page preserves that gap.
Assumptions & limits
Source recovery establishes that the expression appears in this record. Its mathematical validity, implementation behavior, and interpretation must be assessed separately. See the linked source and research notes for the checks available for this version.
Original context
Read the surrounding source passage
8. Coherence, construction, and mathematical consistency 8.1 Agreement with a prediction is not agreement with reality If a predictor and a maintained representation are both wrong in the same way, their discrepancy can be zero. Let an external target be r=2, a maintained representation z=1, and a prediction z=1. Then z−z=0, z−r=1. Perfect internal predictability therefore does not imply reference accuracy. This observation supports a useful distinction in the hypothesis: internally coherent processing can disagree with an independently specified target. It does not by itself establish an experienced point of view. The same issue applies to “coherence of coherence.” An outer consistency check can be perfectly consistent about an inaccurate inner model. Adding recursive evaluators does not supply an independent anchor unless their inputs contain independently informative evidence.
Exact original notation
r=2