Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 3 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

The experiment must therefore pair complex eigenvalue and biorthogonal left/right tomography with both initial states, both orientations, a rate ladder and unnormalized gain/loss. An EP-excluding loop with matched imaginary-spectrum exposure tests whether chirality belongs to winding or to the propagator. A useful asymmetric switch may be entirely real engineering while still being the wrong evidence for a topological or spontaneous-selection claim.

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 3 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