Skip to content

Update EIP-7594: correct sign in probability table for ε=0.01#10736

Closed
MozirDmitriy wants to merge 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom
MozirDmitriy:fix/eip-7594-probability-table-typo
Closed

Update EIP-7594: correct sign in probability table for ε=0.01#10736
MozirDmitriy wants to merge 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom
MozirDmitriy:fix/eip-7594-probability-table-typo

Conversation

@MozirDmitriy
Copy link
Contributor

Corrects a typographical error in EIPS/eip-7594.md under Security Considerations where the upper bound probability for ε=0.01 was listed as 10^{38.36}, which exceeds 1 and is physically impossible for a probability. Updated to 10^{-38.36} to align with the pattern of other rows and with the expected negligible upper bounds.

@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Nov 11, 2025

File EIPS/eip-7594.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @dankrad, @djrtwo, @fradamt, @hwwhww, @ralexstokes

@g11tech
Copy link
Contributor

g11tech commented Nov 11, 2025

this seems to be correct as per the EIP content but its best to be first approved by the author

@eth-bot eth-bot added the a-review Waiting on author to review label Nov 11, 2025
@dankrad
Copy link
Contributor

dankrad commented Nov 11, 2025

Well, that is not the correct number though, since it would be smaller than for epsilon=0.02. Someone should recalculate the whole table to check.

@fradamt
Copy link
Contributor

fradamt commented Nov 11, 2025

That column gives the value of the bound on the probability, not of the probability itself. In the first case case the bound is just useless

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

SamWilsn commented Jan 6, 2026

Hey all! We're trying to get these EIPs to final, so we need to have this pull request resolved. If any of Danny Ryan (@djrtwo), Dankrad Feist (@dankrad), Francesco D'Amato (@fradamt), Hsiao-Wei Wang (@hwwhww), Alex Stokes (@ralexstokes) could take a look and either approve or signal that this can be closed, I'd really appreciate it!

@dankrad
Copy link
Contributor

dankrad commented Jan 7, 2026

Since I think nobody is running these simulations now, I would suggest we change the number to 1, because that is definitely also an upper bound, and avoids the confusion with the sign

@nixorokish
Copy link
Member

solved by #11238, this issue can be closed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

a-review Waiting on author to review c-update Modifies an existing proposal t-core

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

Comments