# Academic Wording Guidelines for StarForth **Version**: 1.0 **Date**: 2025-12-14 **Purpose**: Maintain academic rigor and avoid causation claims --- ## Critical Rule: Avoid Implied Causation When noting mathematical similarities between StarForth's empirical results and equations from physics, **always** use language that describes structural similarity, not equivalence. --- ## ✅ APPROVED PHRASES (Use These) ### Describing Mathematical Relationships **Best (Most Defensive):** ```markdown "We evaluated multiple candidate models and found that the functional form τ = τ₀/√(1-β²) provided the best empirical fit across workloads." ``` **Good:** - "fits the functional form" - "shares structural similarity with" - "is mathematically isomorphic to" - "exhibits the same mathematical structure as" - "the empirical data conforms to" - "matches the pattern of" ### Describing Observations **Good:** - "We observed that..." - "The data reveals..." - "Measurements indicate..." - "Empirical analysis shows..." - "The experimental results demonstrate..." ### Noting Physics Parallels **Good:** - "shares dimensional similarity with" - "the functional form also appears in [physics context]" - "this mathematical structure is also found in" - "bears mathematical resemblance to" --- ## ❌ FORBIDDEN PHRASES (Never Use) ### Direct Equivalence Claims **Never:** - "is equivalent to" - "is the same as" - "proves that" - "demonstrates that [physics concept] applies" ### Unqualified Analogies **Avoid (unless in clearly-marked interpretation sections):** - "is analogous to" - "corresponds to" (without "structurally" or similar qualifier) - "behaves as" (without qualification) - "mirrors" (implies direct correspondence) - "exactly as predicted by" ### Causation Implications **Never:** - "because of [physics principle]" - "due to [physics concept]" - "governed by [physics law]" - "obeys [physics equation]" --- ## Examples: Before & After ### Example 1: Performance Scaling ❌ **WRONG:** ``` "Performance scales exactly as predicted by special relativity's time dilation." ``` ✅ **CORRECT:** ``` "We evaluated multiple candidate performance models. The empirical data fits the functional form τ = τ₀/√(1-β²), which shares structural similarity with the Lorentz transformation from special relativity." ``` **Why**: The correct version: 1. States we tried multiple models (not cherry-picking) 2. Uses "fits the functional form" (empirical observation) 3. Uses "shares structural similarity" (mathematical fact, not causation) --- ### Example 2: Window Capacity Law ❌ **WRONG:** ``` "The system obeys a cosmological constant law Λ(DoF) = 4096/(DoF+1)." ``` ✅ **CORRECT:** ``` "Empirical measurements reveal that window capacity follows the relationship Λ(DoF) = 4096/(DoF+1) with 0.00% coefficient of variation. The symbol Λ is borrowed from cosmology for mathematical convenience." ``` **Why**: The correct version: 1. "Empirical measurements reveal" (observation, not theory) 2. "follows the relationship" (describes pattern, not obedience to law) 3. Explicitly states Λ is "borrowed... for mathematical convenience" (notation, not physics) --- ### Example 3: Geodesic Convergence ❌ **WRONG:** ``` "Workloads converge along geodesics analogous to general relativity." ``` ✅ **CORRECT:** ``` "All workload trajectories converge to the same attractor basin regardless of starting conditions. This pattern shares structural similarity with geodesic motion in curved spacetime." ``` **Why**: The correct version: 1. Describes observed behavior first (empirical fact) 2. "shares structural similarity" (mathematical comparison, not physical claim) 3. No causation implied --- ## Defensive Language Patterns ### Pattern 1: Model Evaluation Statement **Template:** ``` "We evaluated [N] candidate models including [list]. The functional form [equation] provided the best fit with R² = [value]." ``` **Example:** ``` "We evaluated linear, polynomial, exponential, and power-law models. The functional form f(t) = f₀×e^(-λt) provided the best fit with R² = 0.96." ``` **Defense**: Shows you didn't cherry-pick; you tested alternatives. --- ### Pattern 2: Empirical Observation + Mathematical Note **Template:** ``` "[Empirical observation]. This [relationship/pattern/structure] also appears in [context] as [reference]." ``` **Example:** ``` "Performance scales nonlinearly with degrees of freedom. This functional form also appears in special relativity as the Lorentz factor." ``` **Defense**: Observation is separate from physics reference; no causation implied. --- ### Pattern 3: Metaphor Disclosure **Template:** ``` "We employ [physics concept] as a conceptual metaphor, where [mapping]. The actual implementation uses [literal description]." ``` **Example:** ``` "We employ thermodynamic cooling as a conceptual metaphor, where execution frequency decreases over time. The actual implementation uses exponential decay f(t) = f₀×e^(-λt) applied periodically." ``` **Defense**: Explicitly labels metaphor as metaphor; provides literal implementation. --- ## Section-Specific Guidelines ### In Abstracts/Titles **Use**: Mathematical/empirical language only - ✅ "Frequency-Based Adaptive Runtime" - ❌ "Physics-Driven Adaptive Runtime" ### In Introductions **First**: State empirical observations **Then**: Note mathematical similarities **Never**: Claim physics explains computation ### In Methods/Implementation **Use**: Literal descriptions only - ✅ "Frequency counter incremented on execution" - ❌ "Temperature increases when word heats up" ### In Results **Use**: Statistical language - ✅ "CV = 0.00% (p < 10^-30)" - ❌ "Perfect thermodynamic equilibrium achieved" ### In Discussion/Interpretation Sections **Allowed**: Exploratory language, **IF** properly qualified - ✅ "One interpretation is that... However, causation is not established." - ✅ "This pattern suggests possible structural similarities with..." - ❌ "This proves that computation follows physics laws" --- ## Academic Reviewer Defense Scenarios ### Scenario 1: "You're claiming physics!" **Response:** "No. Section [X] explicitly states: 'We employ [concept] as a conceptual metaphor.' All empirical claims are mathematical: the functional form f(t) = f₀×e^(-λt) fits our performance data with R² = [value]. That this same functional form appears in physics is noted as a mathematical similarity, not a physical claim." ### Scenario 2: "You cherry-picked equations!" **Response:** "Section [X] documents that we evaluated [N] candidate models: [list]. The reported functional form was selected based on empirical fit quality (R² = [value], AIC = [value]), not theoretical preference." ### Scenario 3: "This is pseudoscience!" **Response:** "All claims are empirically verifiable: 1. [Claim 1]: See [data file], line [X] 2. [Claim 2]: See [experimental results] 3. [Claim 3]: Reproduction protocol in [file] The physics references describe mathematical similarities, clearly documented in ONTOLOGY.md Section [X] as metaphorical framing, not physical causation." --- ## Checklist Before Publication Before submitting any paper, presentation, or public documentation: - [ ] Search for "is equivalent to" → replace with "fits the functional form" - [ ] Search for "is analogous to" → replace with "shares structural similarity" - [ ] Search for "corresponds to" → add qualifier like "structurally" - [ ] Search for "mirrors" → replace with "matches the pattern of" - [ ] Search for "exactly as" → replace with "according to the functional form" - [ ] Search for "obeys" → replace with "follows the relationship" - [ ] Search for "governed by" → replace with "characterized by" - [ ] Verify all metaphors are explicitly labeled in text - [ ] Confirm empirical claims have data references - [ ] Check that all physics parallels use "shares similarity" language --- ## Cross-Reference See also: - **ONTOLOGY.md** - Section 3.2 "Avoid/Deprecated Terms" - **ONTOLOGY.md** - Section 7.1 "Academic Writing Guidelines" - **ONTOLOGY.md** - Section 1.2 "Conceptual Relationships" (metaphor mapping) --- ## Summary **Golden Rule**: Describe what you **observed**, note where it **mathematically resembles** known equations, but **never claim** the physics causes the behavior. **Your Position**: - "We measured these relationships in our system" - "They fit these mathematical forms" - "These forms also appear in physics" - "This similarity may provide useful modeling frameworks" **NOT Your Position**: - "Our system implements physics" - "Physics laws govern our system" - "This proves computation is physical" --- **Maintain this discipline rigorously, and no academic reviewer can challenge your scientific integrity.** --- **License**: See ../LICENSE