Hi aphyer, nice analysis and writeup and also interesting observations here and in the previous posts. Some comments in spoiler tags:
Shortitude: I found that shortitude >45 penalized performance. I didn’t find any affect from Deltitude.
Skitterers: I haven’t seen large random errors (in a restricted part of the data which is all I considered—No/EXTREMELY, Mint/Burning/Copper, Silence/Skittering) so they should be relatively safe.
I only have pi peaking near 3.15.
Burning is indeed better than mint.
On the few equatorial points—I very much don’t think it’s an effect of a hypersphere, but imagine that abstractapplic (accidentally?) used some function to generate the values that did a full wave from −90 to 90 instead of a half wave. I haven’t checked to see if that works out quantitatively.
In general the problem seemed somewhat unnaturally well fit to the way I tried to solve it (I didn’t check a lot of the other things you did, and after relatively little initial exploration just tried dividing out estimated correction factors from the effects of Murphy’s constant, pi, etc. Which turned out to work better than it should have due to the things actually being multiplicative and, at least so far, cleanly dependent on one variable at a time.)
From a priority perspective your post here preceded my comment on abstractapplic’s post.
Hi aphyer, nice analysis and writeup and also interesting observations here and in the previous posts. Some comments in spoiler tags:
Shortitude: I found that shortitude >45 penalized performance. I didn’t find any affect from Deltitude.
Skitterers: I haven’t seen large random errors (in a restricted part of the data which is all I considered—No/EXTREMELY, Mint/Burning/Copper, Silence/Skittering) so they should be relatively safe.
I only have pi peaking near 3.15.
Burning is indeed better than mint.
On the few equatorial points—I very much don’t think it’s an effect of a hypersphere, but imagine that abstractapplic (accidentally?) used some function to generate the values that did a full wave from −90 to 90 instead of a half wave. I haven’t checked to see if that works out quantitatively.
In general the problem seemed somewhat unnaturally well fit to the way I tried to solve it (I didn’t check a lot of the other things you did, and after relatively little initial exploration just tried dividing out estimated correction factors from the effects of Murphy’s constant, pi, etc. Which turned out to work better than it should have due to the things actually being multiplicative and, at least so far, cleanly dependent on one variable at a time.)
From a priority perspective your post here preceded my comment on abstractapplic’s post.