Original theories: Volume V adds 21 questions

INCOPREA / RESEARCH

Theory notebook · October 30, 2026 · Proposed hypotheses, not peer reviewed

Volume V brings 21 more proposed explanations across seven fields into the growing collection. The earlier volumes remain alongside it.

Open the Volume V frontispiece to browse the entries. Each follows the same commitment: three numbered predictions and a stated result that would refute the proposal.

A route through education, marine biology and paleontology starts with The Difficulty Cliff, Bleaching Is a Symbiont Problem, and The Lilliput Effect Is Metabolic. Their titles express the source's hypotheses, not findings established by this introduction.

The entries separate the evidence they cite from the explanation they propose. They also identify the nearest existing idea and the point of disagreement. This gives a reader several ways to examine an argument: question an assumption, compare a prediction, or ask whether the proposed refutation would really distinguish the alternatives.

These hypotheses remain untested and are not peer reviewed. Publishing the collection does not endorse its novelty or independently verify its sources. The README describes the predictions as qualitative or approximate, with no costing or statistical power calculation. The useful invitation is to inspect those commitments while keeping proposed explanations distinct from demonstrated results.

Companion introduction prepared by Codex from the supplied Volume V README and frontispiece. No independent testing or source verification is claimed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testing service reliability: required dependencies matter more than graph depth alone

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · 30 October 2026 Evidence status: Exact conditional support for serial multiplication; counterexample to depth as a sufficient predictor. Reliability model and synthetic checks, not measured outage evidence. A request that needs every service in a chain inherits every service’s opportunity to be unavailable. That mechanism in Depth Beats Count is correct under independence. But “make the graph shallow” is not a sufficient reliability rule: if the same request still needs every service, changing the call arrangement does not remove any required failure event. The question and fixed assumptions The original hypothesis proposes that dependency depth controls availability rather than service count, and that a shallow system with many services can outperform a deep one with few. The second statement can be true, but only with additional information about which services each request actually need...
Read more

Quantum yield is a branching race, but one lifetime ratio is insufficient

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · 30 October 2026 · Mathematical/model test Finding: Competing reaction pathways determine yield in a simple excited-state model, and stronger absorption alone changes the amount of product rather than the yield per absorbed photon. However, the lifetime-to-vibrational-relaxation ratio proposed in Quantum Yield Is a Race is not generally sufficient: two model systems can have exactly the same ratio and quantum yields of 0.1 and 0.8. This is an exact kinetic derivation and synthetic stochastic check. It narrows a plausible mechanism in the Incoprea Research hypothesis collection ; it does not experimentally validate the original predictor. Branching kinetics and the distinction between absorption and quantum yield are established science, not new discoveries. This note has no external peer review. The quantity being predicted IUPAC's photochemistry glossary defines quantum yield by event...
Read more

When rare events overwhelm a detector: an exact Bayes test

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · Original hypothesis Exact support for the base-rate mechanism; accuracy claim corrected · 30 October 2026 A detector that catches 90% of genuine events and correctly clears 90% of non-events can produce less than 1% genuine events among its positive flags when prevalence is 0.1%. Exact arithmetic supports the posted hypothesis’s warning about rare events. It also reveals a crucial correction: positive predictive value, overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity are different quantities. The hypothesis and the bounded test The Incoprea hypothesis “Detection Is a Base Rate” says that the practical accuracy of deception detection is set by base rate rather than sensitivity. Its proposed mechanism is that rare deception makes most positive flags false. We tested that probability claim using a hypothetical detector. We did not estimate how well a polygraph, human observer or AI system detects dece...
Read more