Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 1 of 3

selection is a channel, not a filter

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 acoustic repeated-return proposal contained a type error. A lossless coherent pressure-transfer matrix preserves projective distance and cannot attract distinct preparations. A fixed passive matrix can attract after normalization, but the contraction is then completely controlled by unequal singular values: it is ordinary attenuation or gain filtering, not an additional selection mechanism.

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 “selection is a channel, not a filter”. This is assertion 1 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