Documentation

LeanPool.Superdiffusion.Algsuperdiff.Section4.Provider.ExcessDecay.CoveringSlotObstruction

CoveringSlotObstruction #

Ported from scottnarmstrong/Superdiffusion at 7f20476385d4af418f110303085ad0740c9eba46. Module imports, support namespace and local option directives adapted for Lean Pool.

Where the boundary covering cube sits relative to the good-event slot #

  max { σ_{n+2}⁻¹ Λ_{s/8,2}(□_{n+2}; ã) , σ_{n+2} λ_{s/8,2}(□_{n+2}; ã)⁻¹ }

at the sample τ_z ω — physically the cube z + □_{n+2}. So the question is one about two cubes of the same scale: c + □_{n+2} versus z + □_{n+2}.

This module answers it geometrically, in both directions.

Nothing here transports any coefficient, error or ellipticity quantity: this module is pure cube geometry, exactly like BoundaryCoveringGeometry. In particular nothing below is an instance, or a fraction, of any source node.

References #

1. Two open cubes of the same scale #

2. The frontier gate from a containment in □_m #

3. The obstruction #

4. The positive half: the covering cube fits one scale up #

The clamp moves each coordinate by less than half a side of □_k.

The positive half.

The boundary covering cube always sits inside z + □_{k+1}, provided the window centre x is within half a side of □_{k-1} of z — which is exactly what the anchor's geometry binder gives at k = n+2.

Consequently a good-event slot at index n+3 does reach the covering cube: the proved off-grid transports require precisely a containment of the off-grid cube in a grid cube, and this is that containment at depth one.

The covering cube inside the anchor's own window cube.

At the boundary lane's covering scale k = n+2, under the frozen theorem's own binders, c + □_{n+2} ⊆ z + □_{n+3}. Together with gate_of_wellPlacedCentre_subset_slot this is the exact measurement: the covering cube is outside the n+2 slot on the boundary branch, and inside the n+3 one always.