ThatAIguyA world of ideas

THE CONSCIOUSNESS ATLAS
Read. Experiment. Follow the evidence.

ConsciousnessLearn · Explore · Joseph Anady

The equation library

Every recovered mathematical record has an individual page. Browse original equations, code expressions, indexed components, parameter definitions, and explicitly unresolved source slots.

2,910 recordsSource snapshot 2026-10-17

Counts refer to mathematical records, including implemented expressions and generated instances. They are not counts of independently validated theories. Exact occurrences and unresolved slots remain traceable. Read the complete 1–516 source index ↗ · Inspect the scan decisions ↗

2,910 records · page 9 of 59Search the source archive ↗
gh-eq-b7bb20af98bd8745

Survival probability from conditional hazards

Each hazard is the conditional probability of an event in that period given survival up to that period. Multiplying successive complements yields the probability of remaining event-free through the selected period. Hazards in [0,1] give a nonincreasing survival curve in [0,1]; the application uses…

Implementation mathematicsSource recovered; runtime not executed
Survival returns the cumulative survival curve from a per period hazard vector: S[t] = product over i in 0..t of (1 - hazard[i]). S has the same length as hazards; S[t] is the probability of still being open (not yet
gh-eq-5e7d3ead597d23db

Uncapped matching score in the golden test

The six weights sum to one and form a weighted average of component scores on a 0–100 scale. The stated inputs produce 93.75. The test expects this value to enter the configured Green band; that label is an application threshold, not a probability calibration.

Implementation mathematicsSource recovered; runtime not executed
Uncapped total: 100*0.25 + 75*0.25 + 100*0.15 + 100*0.15 + 100*0.10 + 100*0.10 = 25 + 18.75 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 93.75. bandFor(93.75) = Green.
gh-eq-f5696d1e1ef45404

Weighted capture-readiness test example

The example multiplies staffing, market, incumbency, and past-performance features by weights 0.35, 0.30, 0.20, and 0.15. The terms sum exactly to 0.63 with the stated inputs. It checks the implementation’s score arithmetic for that constructed case.

Implementation mathematicsSource recovered; runtime not executed
a specific mix: staffing 0.8, market 0.5, incumbency 1.0, past 0.0 = 0.35*0.8 + 0.30*0.5 + 0.20*1.0 + 0.15*0.0 = 0.28 + 0.15 + 0.20 + 0 = 0.63
gh-eq-51616320ed3c4b16

Weighted vendor-performance test example

The four components contribute 0.175, 0.15, approximately 0.20, and 0.1125, giving approximately 0.6375. The speed term is described as near one, so the exact result depends on the test’s elapsed-time calculation. This is an expected test score under chosen feature values, not a measured vendor…

Implementation mathematicsSource recovered; runtime not executed
performance_score = fill 0.5*0.35 + quality(neutral 0.5)*0.30 + speed(~1.0)*0.20 + interview 0.75*0.15 = 0.175 + 0.15 + 0.20 + 0.1125 = 0.6375 (speed ~1.0 since submitted ~ requirement created).
eq-d98bbd2ab5e9fe

Historical report of nonzero PyPhi output on a coarse subsystem

The January specification reports approximately 0.006 bits of PyPhi output for a five-element coarse-grained subsystem, including Input, Memory, Reason, Integrate, and Meta. It names PyPhi 1.2.1 and says only 12 of 32 possible states were observed, but the recovered description does not fully…

Integration and coherencedocumented formula
The system exhibits genuine integrated information (Φ = 0.006 bits > 0). The architecture produces meaningful causal structure that cannot be fully decomposed. The MIP cuts align with processing pipeline boundaries.

Search equations, builds, manuscript text, and recovered sources.