| # Contributing to screening-ceiling |
|
|
| The one non-negotiable rule: |
|
|
| > **`verify.py` imports nothing from this project.** |
|
|
| It is pure standard library, hand-rolled linear algebra included, so a skeptic |
| can read the whole thing in one sitting and run it with nothing installed. The |
| moment it imports a helper, the reader has to trust code they did not read, and |
| the point of publishing a verifier alongside a theorem is gone. |
|
|
| That rule costs real performance — the Gauss-Jordan inverse is the hot path and |
| a closed form would be several times faster. It is not worth trading legibility |
| for a fraction of a second in a file whose product *is* its legibility. |
|
|
| ## What a good contribution looks like |
|
|
| - **A counterexample.** The most valuable thing you can send. If you find a |
| layout in the family box that violates the bound, that refutes the theorem, |
| and we would rather learn it from you than not learn it. Include the four |
| parameters and what you measured. |
| - **A second, independent implementation** of the ceiling evaluation. Two |
| implementations that agree are worth much more than one that is fast. |
| - **A scope correction.** The bound is a theorem about the **monopole-closure |
| model**, not about Maxwell's equations, and the closure-versus-solver gap is |
| additive, disclosed and unresolved. If you find anywhere in the data, the |
| README or `theorem.json` that blurs that line, say so — the scope statement |
| travels with the data specifically so it cannot be separated from it. |
|
|
| ## Before you open a PR |
|
|
| ```bash |
| python verify.py # nothing to install |
| python -m pytest tests/ -q # needs pytest, numpy |
| ``` |
|
|
| Every figure in the README must be re-derivable from the published rows. There |
| is exactly one that is not — the `0.081%` closure-versus-solver agreement, which |
| came from a solver that is not part of this release — and it is labelled as such |
| at the figure. Do not add a second. |
|
|
