Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Databases and data structures — how stored data is organized so that it can be found and kept current — physical database design and index selection, materialized views and the choice of which answers to precompute, adaptive and self-organizing structures, lower bounds on lookup, caching and paging; and the cost of organizing ahead of use against organizing in use. Read for itself, not as ML practice: learned indexes and other machine-learning approaches go to the anthology (ADR-045).
5 of 547 CLAIM documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLAIM-306 | Under a deadline, search can establish presence by finding one item but absence only by exhausting the collection, so “If I can’t find it, it isn’t there” acts on an unfinished search as negation as failure acts on a finished one: a default stronger than either the closed-world assumption or negation as failure, safe only when the arrangement makes the full search finish within the deadline | The medic’s “If I can’t find it, it isn’t there” (CASE-085) and the owner’s “if I can’t find it quickly enough, it may as well not be there” (CASE-094) act on a failed search as if it showed absence. One find shows presence, but absence needs a check of everything, which a deadline forbids. First filed as negation as failure on a time bound, with Reiter and Clark unread. Both readings corrected it. The two assumptions are separate. Reiter’s closed-world assumption is that the database is complete about the world. Clark’s negation as failure is licensed only by finite failure: “the exhaustive but unsuccessful search for a proof”. A search cut off by a deadline meets neither, so the rule is stronger than both. It assumes a closed world and that the unsearched part would have failed. It is safe when the full pass finishes in time. In CASE-085 the EMT knew the drug was stocked, which is exactly where Reiter shows the closed-world assumption inconsistent. So there it was a decision to stop, not an inference. | Superseded — by CLAIM-312 |
| CLAIM-311 | A search cut off before an exhaustive pass can establish absence when the arrangement certifies that the unsearched remainder cannot hold the item: a sorted table answers non-membership in a logarithmic number of probes, and the Threshold Algorithm stops early with its answer proved, so absence needs a certificate about the remainder, not exhaustion; similarity search in high dimension is where no such certificate exists | Filed at the owner’s request, from the database readings set against CLAIM-306’s asymmetry: presence by one find, absence “only by exhausting the collection”. Sorted order and the Threshold Algorithm each establish absence from part of the collection, because the arrangement bounds what the rest can hold. That meets CLAIM-306’s own defeat condition, and the claim is conceded: CLAIM-312 restates it. Where the arrangement gives no bound, as in similarity search in high dimension, CLAIM-306’s asymmetry stands. | Active |
| CLAIM-312 v2 | ”If I can’t find it, it isn’t there” asserts operational unavailability, that the item will not be put to use before the deadline, not absence: a search that fails by the deadline establishes unavailability outright, and licenses absence only with a certificate that the unsearched remainder cannot hold the item, from exhaustion, from an invariant of the arrangement, or from a closed-world default | Restates CLAIM-306 at the owner’s request, after CLAIM-311 showed that absence can be established without exhausting a collection. The owner’s own wording in CASE-094, “it may as well not be there”, is hyperbole for operational availability (TERM-055), not a claim about inventory. Read so, the rule reports an outcome and needs no default. CLAIM-306’s analysis survives as the account of the literal reading: what a failed search must be joined with before it licenses absence. The gap between the two readings is CLAIM-306’s Bayes term, and it matters when the statement is passed to someone who will act on presence. | Active |
| CLAIM-313 v2 | A fixed number of bins realizes one partition only when each item is stored once: with copies, overlapping partitions coexist, as hashing-based similarity search stores each item in many partitions and pays for it in space, so sortings conflict as arrangements only under a one-copy constraint, which binds bricks but not index entries | Filed at the owner’s request, from the readings on locality-sensitive hashing (Indyk and Motwani 1998; Andoni, Laarhoven, Razenshteyn and Waingarten 2017) set against CLAIM-310’s premise that “a set of k bins realizes one partition of the collection at a time”. That holds when each item is in one place. An index can hold many copies, and hashing-based similarity indexes do exactly that, trading the space of the copies against query time on an exact curve. It narrows CLAIM-310 to collections whose items cannot be copied, which includes the LEGO case; it does not touch the claim about descriptions. | Active |
| CLAIM-314 | Reusing a filed argument has a recognition cost that a fixed per-use price leaves out: certifying that stored answers cover a new question is NP-complete even for conjunctive queries, grows with the number and size of the stored definitions rather than being a constant per item, and is undefined for an item filed without a statement of what it answers, so each filing raises the cost of later reuse and per-item break-even decisions are not independent | Filed at the owner’s request, from the readings on answering queries using views (Levy, Mendelzon, Sagiv and Srivastava 1995; Chandra and Merlin 1977; Halevy 2001). CLAIM-308’s guarantee needs a fixed, known per-use cost c_a; recognizing that a stored answer covers a new question is a search whose cost depends on everything stored, so filing one item changes the price of using the others. It undermines the premise CLAIM-308 states, not its arithmetic. The hardness is worst case and over short definitions, partial reuse is cheap, and nothing here is measured on the record. | Proposed |