Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 2 of 3

a term is not a detector row

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

For the published MFV numerical kernel at the stated scale, the flavor row on \((A_2,c_{WW})\) is \(0.019(-0.0057)(-1/2,1)\). It is a scalar multiple of the weak row \((-1/2,1)\); their determinant vanishes and both annihilate \((2,1)\). The isolated \(c_{WW}\) term remains a correct piece of the matching calculation, but other pieces restore the quotient in the complete expression.

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 term is not a detector row”. 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