Why I publish my own corrections
Fourteen retractions in one archive is unusual. Here is the argument for treating them as the most useful thing on the site.
corrections
20 posts.
A leakage probability that exceeded one
An exponential that is not a probability, blowing up to ten to the twenty-seven at a modest input. The fix is in the archive.
A thin-wall instanton that gave exactly one
Three factors of the same scale cancelling, so that a suppression of ten to the minus sixty-four came out as a third.
The one over ten nobody could derive
A single coefficient that stood between a formula and a match, and where it came from, which is nowhere.
A phase picked after the answer was known
The primordial phase was presented as fixed by modular data. The channel and the prefactor were chosen to give pi over six.
Yukawa ratios that fit nothing
Two ratios built on unspecified factors, disagreeing with the observed values by factors of two and five.
A table of quantum dimensions that summed wrong
A list of numbers I believed because I never added them. The correction was integers all along.
A rate that could not equal itself
Setting an expansion rate equal to a replication rate, differing by a factor of ten to the fifty-eight.
Ten to the fourteen point five
A four-tier renormalisation cascade that misses its target by fourteen and a half orders of magnitude, with fitted exponents all the way down.
The efficiency I solved for instead of deriving
A divisor described as exact, which was in fact reverse-engineered from the measurement it was meant to predict.
Nineteen over eighteen should have been ten over nine
A trigonometric sum that I bracketed correctly and then added up wrongly, in the same equation.
a-zero: the formula that did not give its own answer
A critical acceleration whose stated formula evaluates to sixty-six per cent above the value claimed for it.
An exponent that missed by forty-nine orders of magnitude
The worst single error in the programme, and the odd comfort that it was caught by its own printed arithmetic.
The 12 pi that was not 12 pi
An identity I presented as independent confirmation, which is really a definition with a missing factor of omega lambda.
I chose the exponent to make the number come out
N_hor = D_C to the power 72. Neighbouring exponents move the answer four decades. Nothing selected 72 except the answer.
Paper 7a: baryogenesis, withdrawn
Baryogenesis built on a Lagrangian that had already been withdrawn. Archived with the rest.
The gauge coupling ratios, withdrawn
A no-go that was correct but was written up as a derivation. Archived.
Paper 11: structure growth, withdrawn
Another archived paper, and a note on why archiving beats deleting.
Paper 10a: inflation from branch nucleation, withdrawn
A clean idea with no mechanism behind the number it produced. Archived rather than deleted.
Paper 7: the anyon Standard Model, and why it was withdrawn
The most seductive idea in the programme: build the Standard Model from four anyons. It did not survive.