notes(#635/#660): the #635 identity against the wrapping-type tables - #662
Draft
LightChainr wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
notes(#635/#660): the #635 identity against the wrapping-type tables#662LightChainr wants to merge 1 commit into
LightChainr wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Verdict A at finite L (wrapping-form, Mertens-Ziff 2016), degenerate both-same sectors; L=3 Bernstein tripwire reproduced bit-for-bit this session. Axis L=5 / diamond L=4: A-continues, both-two mass 0. Jacobsen map gap stated (order of limits, one-operator vs two-lattices, novelty boundary). Does not fund #636. No STATUS.md edit; no ticket closed.
Owner
Author
|
Verification comment, not a merge request. The L=3 Bernstein gate and the A / A-continues / not-#636 boundary are in good shape. Please keep this distinction explicit in a follow-up commit if you touch the note: |
This was referenced Sep 8, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Write-up deliverable for #660 (parent #650). One new file:
notes/issue-635-identity-20260908.md. No new census; consumes the unmerged artifacts of PR #646, #653, #657, #654, #645.The five deliverable bullets
none/x/y/both-same/both-two, combinatorial on finite-L configurations via cluster displacement lattices) mapped onto the Repair #632 bond laboratory; wrapping-type census L=3,4 (#640) #653 coarse 4×4 (neither/dir0/dir1/both, which folds both-same and both-two intoboth) and onto Mertens–Ziff cross vs spiral (via the PR Retrieval: torus wrapping probabilities vs the matching function (#642) #654 identification: the repository's x=eitherdifference equals the cross difference by MZ (20)).a_k = #(black ∈ both-same, k) − #(white ∈ both-same, k); acceptance gate is the committed axis L=3 Bernstein integers, re-run this session and reproduced bit-for-bit:[-1,-9,-36,-78,-90,-36,36,36,9,1](scripts/exact_matching_polynomial.py --geometry axis --L 3). The two amplitude rows sum to the reference exactly (PR probe635: M(p) as both-same sector difference — exact at finite L (verdict A, degenerate sectors); #628 bond rank defect fixed #646 script re-run); M(1/2) = −21/64, u_c = 43/128 re-confirmed by Fraction arithmetic.both-twomass 0 at every k on 2²⁵ and 2³²; coarse 4×4 still the five MZ cells) — and what they cannot change: the Jacobsen map (PR notes(#637): retrieval — what is published on sector crossings vs our matching identity #645), which is an m→∞-first eigenvalue statement about one pTL operator, not reachable by more enumeration; the crux (matching-lattice content vs open/closed sectors of one operator) is stated as the open gap.Boundaries
dual_failas physics (repaired compound artifact, PR Repair #632 bond laboratory; wrapping-type census L=3,4 (#640) #653/probe635: M(p) as both-same sector difference — exact at finite L (verdict A, degenerate sectors); #628 bond rank defect fixed #646).docs/STATUS.md; does not close [P1 long-horizon] Is M(p) the difference of two topological sector amplitudes? Prove or kill the map before anyone builds a transfer matrix #635, [P1 exact] Wrapping-type-resolved census: the exact table #635 has to test any sector decomposition against #640, [P1 exact] Does both-two acquire mass at axis L=5? Structural caveat on #635 A #651, [Research focus] One active deliverable: arbitrary-period matching-root consistency #650; draft, not merged.Related: #635, #637, #640, #642, #646, #651, #653, #654, #657, #660.