Put GF-T where it belongs: at the top - #634
Merged
Merged
Conversation
GF-T was the fourth item in a list halfway down two pages, while the homepage led
with a verification service. That is backwards. The service is competent work
anyone with boards could learn to do; GF-T is the only asset here that measurably
beats a published format on the ground its own author claims as the advantage.
Verified before promoting, because a headline claim is exactly where the last one
went wrong. Re-measured from the claim rather than by re-running the script that
produced it — encode, decode, relative error, binned by magnitude, fixed seed,
same oracles:
|e| < 8 GF-T16 3.56e-4 tekum16 3.27e-4 0.92x a tie
|e| 8-20 GF-T16 3.52e-4 tekum16 1.00e-3 2.84x
|e| 20-38 GF-T16 3.53e-4 tekum16 1.95e-3 5.53x
The research note's "3x and 5.5x" reproduces exactly. The site now carries the
measured ratios rather than the rounded ones.
One correction fell out of the check, and it was worth making. The note labelled
those bins "dec". They are powers of two. Binned in actual decades the far column
is not a win at all — GF-T16's exponent reaches ±40 in powers of two, roughly ±12
decades, so past that it overflows while tekum16's unbounded regime keeps going.
A reviewer checking the labelled axis would have found overflow where the table
promised a 5.5x win and concluded the number was invented. Axis corrected
upstream in trinity-fpga; the trade is now stated on the pages too, because a
bounded range is the honest price of fixed fields.
Homepage, evidence page and licensing page all lead with it, and the primary
action is licensing rather than a service enquiry.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
github-actions Bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2026
Put GF-T where it belongs: at the top (#634) GF-T was the fourth item in a list halfway down two pages, while the homepage led with a verification service. That is backwards. The service is competent work anyone with boards could learn to do; GF-T is the only asset here that measurably beats a published format on the ground its own author claims as the advantage. Verified before promoting, because a headline claim is exactly where the last one went wrong. Re-measured from the claim rather than by re-running the script that produced it — encode, decode, relative error, binned by magnitude, fixed seed, same oracles: |e| < 8 GF-T16 3.56e-4 tekum16 3.27e-4 0.92x a tie |e| 8-20 GF-T16 3.52e-4 tekum16 1.00e-3 2.84x |e| 20-38 GF-T16 3.53e-4 tekum16 1.95e-3 5.53x The research note's "3x and 5.5x" reproduces exactly. The site now carries the measured ratios rather than the rounded ones. One correction fell out of the check, and it was worth making. The note labelled those bins "dec". They are powers of two. Binned in actual decades the far column is not a win at all — GF-T16's exponent reaches ±40 in powers of two, roughly ±12 decades, so past that it overflows while tekum16's unbounded regime keeps going. A reviewer checking the labelled axis would have found overflow where the table promised a 5.5x win and concluded the number was invented. Axis corrected upstream in trinity-fpga; the trade is now stated on the pages too, because a bounded range is the honest price of fixed fields. Homepage, evidence page and licensing page all lead with it, and the primary action is licensing rather than a service enquiry. Co-authored-by: Dmitrii Vasilev <admin@t27.ai> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
GF-T was the fourth item in a list halfway down two pages, while the homepage led with a verification service. That is backwards. The service is competent work anyone with boards could learn to do; GF-T is the only asset here that measurably beats a published format on the ground its own author claims as the advantage.
Verified before promoting
A headline claim is exactly where the last one went wrong, so this was re-measured from the claim rather than by re-running the script that produced it — encode, decode, relative error, binned by magnitude, fixed seed, same oracles:
The research note's "3× and 5.5×" reproduces exactly. The pages now carry the measured ratios rather than the rounded ones.
One correction that was worth making
The note labelled those bins "dec". They are powers of two. Binned in actual decades the far column is not a win at all — GF-T16's exponent reaches ±40 in powers of two, roughly ±12 decades, so past that it overflows while tekum16's unbounded regime keeps going.
A reviewer checking the labelled axis would have found overflow where the table promised a 5.5× win, and concluded the number was invented. Axis corrected upstream in
trinity-fpga; the trade is stated on the pages too, because a bounded range is the honest price of fixed fields.🤖 Generated with Claude Code