Read the equation
This earlier definition searches only after t_D for the first window of persistent discrepancy. It therefore cannot discover a qualifying change that began before declaration and, by construction, makes every found lag positive. The final manuscript replaces that restriction with an independent search across the eligible full record.
Terms & definitions
| Term | Meaning in this source |
|---|---|
| tau | First qualifying post-declaration window; t_H in another version |
| t_D | Declaration time |
| epsilon | Tolerance |
| m | Window length; W in another version |
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
The tolerance ϵ and duration m are measurement choices to be fixed before confirmatory analysis. They are not discovered by selecting whichever values make the hypothesis appear successful. For a binary or exact symbolic reference, exact equality may be meaningful. For real-valued noisy measurements, tolerance and uncertainty are essential.
The candidate post-declaration event time is:
τ=inf{t>tD:Ptϵ,m=1}.
This is an operational event, not a proven consciousness time. Anady’s stronger proposal is that a suitably defined internally generated event of this kind constitutes consciousness, and that sustained processing from the resulting constructed state constitutes cognition. That interpretation remains an explicit hypothesis rather than an assumption in the event detector.
Finite observations can establish persistence through the observed interval, not that two quantities will never agree again. No return before the final observation would be a right-censored observation, not proof of irreversible separation. More importantly, the present dataset does not even provide the paired zt and rt needed for this persistence calculation.
2.4 Coupling is a causal requirementExact original notation
\tau =inf{t>{t}_{D}:{P}_{t}\left(ϵ,m\right)=1}.Related builds
Sources & provenance
\tau =inf{t>{t}_{D}:{P}_{t}\left(ϵ,m\right)=1}.
\tau =inf{t>{t}_{D}:{P}_{t}\left(ϵ,m\right)=1}.
\tau =inf{t>{t}_{D}:{P}_{t}\left(ϵ,m\right)=1}.
\tau =inf{t>{t}_{D}:{P}_{t}\left(ϵ,m\right)=1}.