Repository navigation
Conversation
This was referenced Nov 11, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Scoped written proof with exact finite corroboration. For any finite paired-root graph, the three-shear coordinate cycle
This extends JoyboyBrian's #5214 two-shear boundary into its explicitly open three-shear question. The common-support degree lemma is credited to that predecessor and #5176. The new contribution is the cycle calculation and its universal graph application, produced by Nick Petalas. The coordinate basis attains the bound, so the joint minimum over this allowed family is the root count. No optimum for each fixed nonzero basis is claimed.
Only
research/dn-three-cycle-floor/is added. No new kappa, supplier admission or selected-frontier change.Evidence
Before, #5214 excludes two interacting shears and leaves three open. This proof excludes the stated coordinate cycle away from
tsu=+/-1. Two explicit exceptional examples lose the particular degree minor, without claiming a complete saving.Local CPython 3.12.15 checks pass:
Each registered command was timed directly locally at about two seconds, well below its 120-second cap. The complete registered run also passed.
From the repository root, reproduce with the exact local interpreter path:
Another CPython 3.12 path can replace this one. Expected markers are
PASS_DN_THREE_CYCLE_FLOOR,PASS_REGISTERED_RESEARCH_PACKAGEandPASS_RESEARCH_COMMIT_BYTES.Limitations
The all-graph quantifier rests on the written proof, corroborated by finite execution. Rational paired roots, this ordered cycle, square Gram factors and a common directed fitting binary pairing are the exact scope. Neither exceptional locus, other three-shear index patterns, single-sign deletions nor general bases are settled. Physical coefficients, producer/consumer, dirty restoration, frames, native realization, storage, precision, tape and the recursive invoice remain unpriced. No selected scientific cold replay, Lean or Docker check ran. Independent human and formal proof-kernel review are unclaimed.
Credit also ywz65 #2536/#2719, Aaron Wang / navinor #2272/#2518, DreamingOfClouds's Gram/COPY lineage and the retained contributors in #5214. Exact predecessor proof bytes are pinned as historical provenance.
Open next questions
tsu=1ortsu=-1lower a complete common-pairing bill? Start with the lost-minor fixtures, then price every term on an actual paired D5 graph.Related open work
This account's open PRs created since the advance CLAIM were checked again before DONE. None adds another paired-root coordinate-cycle or common-pairing COPY-bill result, so no additional related-work line or numerical comparison is required.
No additional computations were run to compare another contribution's numbers.
CI notes
CI did not certify this package. At unchanged head
b3ad43d2f5c4181cf79abf8dea382d4d2fbcf547, run 43001222481, plan job 130457550993, failed in "Onboarding helper tests". Its log reports 760 tests, one failure and 24 skipped. The exact failing test istest_research_current_status.CurrentCiNavigationTests.test_current_ci_section_matches_selected_record, with anAssertionErrorbecause`make frontier7000-verify`was not found in the CI verification document.This is an existing repository-level mismatch. At canonical main
e54523517d0f03e58352e647c403a5af3e525a57,certificates/selected-result.jsonrequiresmake frontier7000-verify, whiledocs/ci-verification.mdstill describes #6030 andmake frontier6030-verify. The document's Git blob is identical at this PR's head and main. This PR changes only its six package files.I also read the plan logs of run 42905094314, run 42903313790, and PR7191 run 43000676071. Each reports the same sole failing test and missing-command assertion, with 760 tests and 24 skipped. These are the comparison runs verified here.
The package
replayjob was skipped becauseplanfailed. The local checks above remain local evidence; no hosted scientific replay or independent acceptance is claimed. No fix, retrigger commit or job rerun was made.Merge Danger
Door: two-way. Blast Radius: isolated. Only a new research package is added; shared implementation, selected records and frozen predecessor evidence are unchanged.