Scope
Chapter “The projective loop”, section “Central sign versus handedness”. This is assertion 2 of 2 in that section.
Expanded claim page · assertion 2 of 2
Central sign versus handedness
Obstruction / no-goAuditor
A stated candidate class or identification has been ruled out under explicit assumptions. checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.
Exact assertion
The distinction is not pedantry. A physical selector must couple to something that actually changes under the proposed exchange. If the candidate datum is even, no amount of suggestive language makes it an orientation source.
What this commits us to
A specified candidate class fails under explicit assumptions. The conclusion does not automatically extend to mechanisms outside that class.
Logical anatomy
Evidence posture
Check the assumptions defining the ruled-out candidate class; the no-go does not automatically extend beyond that class.
Research move
checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.
Verification route
- Recover the declared objects and assumptions from the controlling documents.
- Check the calculation, construction, obstruction or stopping rule on those same objects.
- Compare the source conclusion with the exact assertion above; do not strengthen its verbs or enlarge its domain.
- Apply the status rule and retain every named external dependency.
What would move or defeat this claim
Break one of the no-go assumptions in a controlled construction, or show that the alleged obstruction does not follow within its stated class.
Source map
Controlling documents
- the Wilson pi flux is the nontrivial RP1 line holonomy but its canonical frame lift is central minus I not a Pfaffian sheet flipOpen controlling document →
- fixing the phase symplectic orientation reduces the gram root gauge to SO2 and turns the pfaffian sign into a rank one separated \(\mathbb Z_2\) sheetOpen controlling document →