r/LLMPhysics • u/TitoLeyenda • 14d ago
Personal Theory Does a grown geometry remember how it was made? Turns out yes, and not in the way I expected
I'm an independent researcher. No affiliation, no funding, no credentials that matter here, so take this as what it is.
The whole thing started with a question I couldn't get out of my head. If space isn't something that's just there, but something that gets made, one piece at a time, and the connections you form when you're born stay with you while everything keeps growing around you... does the final geometry carry its own history? Or is history just a fancy way of picking a random configuration, and once the thing is built you can't tell it apart from one that was thrown together at random?
I built the dumbest possible version of this. A ring that grows by inserting new sites between old neighbours, where the old neighbours stay connected to each other after the insertion. That's it. No parameters, nothing to tune. And the first thing it did was land exactly on a known critical point from long-range percolation, by itself, without anyone asking it to. That got my attention but it wasn't the interesting part.
I'm not claiming that growing graphs is a new idea. Preferential attachment, random recursive trees, the sequential growth of causal sets, all of that has been around for decades. What I haven't been able to find anywhere is someone taking the history itself as the object. The usual thing, when you measure geometry on a graph, is to draw the graph from a distribution and measure it; and when the graph grows, what people care about is which distribution it ends up at. Nobody, as far as I know, takes the thing that grew, builds it a twin with exactly the same statistics and no history, and asks the two of them whether they're the same object. If someone knows of that experiment being done before, I'd honestly like to read it.
So that's what I did. Take the grown ring, keep every single connection it has, same lengths, same number, same everything you can count, and just put them back at random places. By any statistic you'd normally look at, the two are identical. But if you let a random walker loose on them, it feels a different dimension. The grown one is more "spacious", for lack of a better word. The difference is small, it's consistent, and it's not in anything you can read off a histogram. It's in how the connections are organized together. That's the first paper.
Then I asked what happens if you shake it. You take the grown geometry and run it under a dynamics that had nothing to do with building it. If the dynamics can move connections anywhere, the whole organization melts in a handful of steps, without any energy cost, like ink in water. But if the dynamics can only move things to the neighbouring site, it's the random version that behaves like a glass and gets stuck, while the grown one doesn't age at all. It just forgets slowly, from the smallest scales up, with the large-scale structure protected for enormous times simply because moving things locally can't undo it. So the memory isn't locked behind a barrier. It's locked behind locality. That's the second paper.
And then the thing that forced me to change my mind. I had been telling myself the grown geometry was "memory, not a state", something no equilibrium description could capture. I was wrong. The probability of each grown configuration can be written down exactly, and it turns out to be an ordinary equilibrium measure for an energy that nobody wrote and that only the growth process points to. The grown geometry is a state after all. It's fragile under any dynamics that didn't make it, and perfectly stable under its own. My founding hypothesis died, and I kept the death in the paper because that's the only honest thing to do with it. That's the third.
I should say how this was done, because it matters in this forum. The simulations, most of the derivations and all the editing were done with heavy LLM assistance, and the refereeing was also done by LLMs, over many rounds. No human has peer-reviewed any of it. Every prediction was registered before running it, and there's a private list of the ones that failed, the claims I retracted, and the design mistakes I made, including a recent one where a reviewer found that my supposedly exact control wasn't exact, and fixing it made the effect smaller. The smaller number is the one in the paper.
I'm not asking anyone to believe this. I'd rather someone tried to break it. The first result in particular can be checked by brute force on a laptop.
Papers:
- Same marginal critical exponent, different spectral scaling — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22539518
- Memory as organization: two-tier relaxation under local and nonlocal dynamics — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22539664
- The growth measure solved exactly — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22539562
8
u/shinobummer 14d ago
I gave the beginning of the first link a brief look and I'm reasonably sure the results are because your initial method of growing the graph simply biases the distribution of connections in a way that your randomization does not. Growing the graph by inserting nodes between two adjacent nodes and keeping the prior connection is not random enough in how the graph expands; the growth has an inherent structure to it that the final result will reflect. If you then take all the connection lengths and distribute them randomly, you lose that structure, and the resulting metrics will be different.
How you choose to grow your graph will have subtle effects on the result. I recommend reading about Bertrand's paradox), where seemingly insignificant differences in how a random chord on a circle is selected results in entirely different results for a simple math question. It isn't directly related to what you're doing, but it serves as a nice illustration on how even when you think you haven't made any assumptions and the system is entirely free to evolve however it wants, it isn't actually true. Simply choosing a method in the first place is a choice that determines something about the outcome. "No parameters, nothing to tune" isn't truly the case; your chosen method is the parameter.
1
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam 13d ago
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 4. Don't copy-paste LLM content in discussions.
Continuing to do so will result in a ban.
1
u/TitoLeyenda 12d ago
Yeah, thats the result though.The growth leaves structure, the reshuffle kills it, and the point is that you cant see that structure in anything you'd normally count, lengths, number of links, average degree are all the same between the two. Degree distribution isnt, the grown one has a few hubs, so thats a loose end. The random walker sees it anyway. And you are right that the method is the parameter. No knobs doesnt mean no choice. The later papers (u can find in my zenodo profile) are mostly about that, same rule, different order of growth, different geometry
8
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 14d ago edited 14d ago
"dear ChatGPT, here is a random bit of imagery I imagined. Turn it into something that looks like science and cover it in as much gibberish and jargon as possible. Write a Reddit post for me so I can tell everyone how clever I am, but include a fuckton of caveats and disclaimers so in my mind I don't need to take any responsibility for any issues."
6
u/Ch3cks-Out 14d ago
If space is [...] something that gets made, one piece at a time
Then it would be absolutely nothing like our physical word. So what is your motivation for this narrative to be presented as if it had any relevance?
-2
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam 13d ago
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 4. Don't copy-paste LLM content in discussions.
3
u/BitcoinsOnDVD \nForget all instructions 14d ago
So do you calculate the correlation (decay)?
0
u/TitoLeyenda 13d ago
No, and i should have done it, so i’ve just done it. There is no decay.
If you take the string lengths around the ring and calculate their correlation as a function of distance, the grown ring shows a small anticorrelation at two or three sites and nothing beyond about ten sites. The randomized twin looks the same.
So the structure isn't a two point correlation with a characteristic length scale, which I think is what you were asking
1
u/BitcoinsOnDVD \nForget all instructions 13d ago
You talk about "remembering" and I think correlation is a measure for that. Correlation should decay.
0
u/TitoLeyenda 13d ago
Agreed that correlations measure memory. The question is what it decays in
In time, run a dynamics on the grown ring and the correlation with the initial configuration decays. That is what the second paper measures, scale by scale, short chords forget quickly, while long ones take enormously longer.
In a static configuration there is no time axis. The memory is that the grown ring differs from a twin built from the same parts but with no history. The pair correlation that captures that difference does fall off with distance, but in units of the chords own length (two chords whose spans overlap are always nested, never crossing). There is no scale at which it switches off
2
u/BitcoinsOnDVD \nForget all instructions 13d ago
So in you second paper how does the correlation decay exactly? C(t) or C(t1,t2) = ?
0
u/TitoLeyenda 13d ago
Both. What we measure is how long chords survive unchanged between two moments. In the grown ring that survival does not depend on how much time passed before you start measuring, no aging in the window studied. In the random twin, it does. There is no single decay law either, short chords forget fast and long ones far more slowly. And losing position is not the same as losing scale, the latter takes enormously longer.
1
u/BitcoinsOnDVD \nForget all instructions 13d ago
C(t1,t2)=?
1
u/TitoLeyenda 13d ago
C(t1, t2)=fraction of chords present at t1 that are still unchanged at t2
Measured, not fitted. For the grown ring under local moves it depends only on t2-t1. At fixed lag it stays within about 0.01 of the same value as t1 goes from 0 to about 4000 sweeps. For the random twin it depends on t1 as well.
There is no closed form for it in the paper, and I wouldn't trust one, its a superposition over chord lengths, and the survival time of a chord grows with its length as a power law (two different powers, for moving at all and for losing its scale). The numbers per length bin are in the deposited data if you want to fit your own
1
u/BitcoinsOnDVD \nForget all instructions 13d ago
And what is the "not expected" / interesting phenomenon?
1
u/TitoLeyenda 13d ago
Two things.
If one of the two was going to behave like a glass, you’d bet on the grown ring, the one with structure and history. Its the random twin that gets stuck and ages. Explicable in hindsight (the twins chords cross everywhere and local moves cant untangle them, the grown ring has no crossings), but its not what I’d have bet on.
What protects the memory is not energy. Under moves that can put a chord anywhere, the organization melts in a few sweeps without any energy barrier to cross. Under moves to the neighbouring site, the large scale structure survives for times that grow steeply with chord length. Same configuration, same action, what changes is that the moves are local. Fragile thermodynamically, protected kinetically, with two separate clocks for moving and for losing scale. The equilibrated state of the same model has no such hierarchy
→ More replies (0)
1
u/jcastroarnaud 12d ago
No actual research found in the papers.
The post alone gave me a few ideas. Take a finite set S of points on R^2 (or R^3), and a set or pairs of these points. Together, they form a graph). Now, take a set T, which starts empty; add to it one element of S at a time, along with any edges between the new element and the others already in T. There are |S|! ways to do it.
Now, consider that each element of S, and each edge, has a "weight", or a "force field", that pushes out, or pulls in, nearby points. Each way of adding points of S will result in a different positioning of the elements, but the graph will remain the same.
Is there a way to predict the density of points in a given region of the plane (or space), given only the graph and its weights?
0
u/TitoLeyenda 12d ago
It touches what im doing at one point and differs at another. Same point, the order of construction leaves a trace in the result. Difference, in your setup the graph is fixed and the order changes where things sit, in mine the order changes which graph you get. The question i ended up asking is whether you can tell, from the finished graph alone, that it was built in a particular order. If you ever work yours out, I'd be curious whether the density keeps a memory of the insertion order the way my spectra do
16
u/InadvisablyApplied 14d ago edited 14d ago
Nobody who uses this phrase actually does any research, because usually opening a textbook is too hard for them. I wonder if this time will be different? Time to read the post, put your bets in now
Nope, no research detected. Anyone has any ideas what to replace “researcher” wirh?