Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 2 of 3

a loop and its outcome are different objects

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

Direct evolution makes the difference quantitative. A period-one loop retains a plus-population difference of about 0.681 between the two inputs. By period sixteen, both clockwise inputs reach the plus endpoint with population about 0.996626 while both counterclockwise inputs reach the minus endpoint by the same amount. At period sixty-four the initial-state difference vanishes at recorded precision and the direction-selected population exceeds 0.9998. Slower evolution strengthens selection here; it does not recover the naive symmetric sheet permutation.

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

Scope

Chapter “The admissibility frontier”, section “a loop and its outcome are different objects”. This is assertion 2 of 3 in that section.

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

  1. Recover the declared objects and assumptions from the controlling documents.
  2. Check the calculation, construction, obstruction or stopping rule on those same objects.
  3. Compare the source conclusion with the exact assertion above; do not strengthen its verbs or enlarge its domain.
  4. 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