Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Le Soleil se l\`evera-t-il demain ?

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Karim Zayana (M.E.N.E.S.R., COMELEC), Olivier Rioul (COMNUM, COMELEC, IP Paris)

History and Overview · Submitted 4 Dec 2023

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim This question is legitimate when we know that Pierre-Simon de Laplace, in 1814, estimated the probability that the Sun would rise again the next day at 0.99999945.

how it is stated · asserted 0.98 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2401.08616 (version 1)
Pith IDA2ZBB77B, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationCOMELEC, COMELEC), IP Paris), Karim Zayana (M.E.N.E.S.R., Olivier Rioul (COMNUM. "Le Soleil se l\`evera-t-il demain ?." arXiv:2401.08616 (2023). https://pith.science/paper/A2ZBB77B
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,892 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.05 · human participants 0.04 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.83 · compares with prior results 0.12 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Should we live every day as if it were our last? This question is legitimate when we know that Pierre-Simon de Laplace, in 1814, estimated the probability that the Sun would rise again the next day at 0.99999945. In this article, we explain in great detail the reasoning and calculations that lead to this surprising result.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Should we live every day as if it were our last? background 1.00 0.03 0.03 unclear 0.97
s1 This question is legitimate when we know that Pierre-Simon de Laplace, in 1814, estimated the probability that the Sun would rise again the next day at 0.99999945. background 0.99 0.04 0.20 asserted 0.98
s2 In this article, we explain in great detail the reasoning and calculations that lead to this surprising result. contribution 0.98 0.58 0.08 asserted 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.86 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.94.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Should we live every day as if it were our last? This question is legitimate when we know that Pierre-Simon de Laplace, in 1814, estimated the probability that the Sun would rise again the next day at 0.99999945. In this article, we explain in great detail the reasoning and calculations that lead to this surprising result.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.