Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 2 of 5

the first new inequality is not new

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

This looks like contextual admissibility doing additional work, but the novelty audit fails. The triangle inequality is exactly the determinant condition in the ordinary positive-semidefinite principal-minor test. Pairwise positivity was merely an incomplete conventional envelope. The result is useful global consistency and a detector warning, but it is neither a new law nor a restriction beyond standard full-matrix positivity.

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 “the first new inequality is not new”. This is assertion 2 of 5 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