gates_consistent
The gates_consistent theorem shows that the J-cost function satisfies interaction, entanglement, hyperbolic ODE, and d'Alembert structure while the quadratic counterexample Fquad fails each property. A researcher finishing the inevitability argument for the Recognition Composition Law would cite this result to confirm convergence of the four gates. The proof is a one-line wrapper that assembles eight prior lemmas, one per gate property.
claimThe J-cost satisfies the interaction property, the RCL combiner is entangling, $G$ satisfies the hyperbolic ODE $G''=G+1$, and J-cost has d'Alembert structure, whereas the quadratic $F$ has no interaction, the additive combiner is not entangling, $G$ satisfies the flat ODE, and the quadratic $F$ lacks d'Alembert structure.
background
The module defines four gates that together force the Recognition Composition Law. The interaction gate states that a cost function $F$ has interaction when $F(xy)+F(x/y)≠2F(x)+2F(y)$ for some $x,y$. The entanglement gate requires the mixed second difference of the combiner $P$ to be nonzero. The curvature gate requires $G''=G+1$ for the hyperbolic branch. The d'Alembert gate requires $H(t+u)+H(t-u)=2H(t)H(u)$ with $H=G+1$ (MODULE_DOC). Upstream lemmas establish that J-cost passes the first three gates (NecessityGates, EntanglementGate, CurvatureGate) and that the quadratic counterexamples fail them (Counterexamples.Fquad, Counterexamples.Gquad).
proof idea
The proof is a one-line wrapper that applies the exact tactic to the eight-tuple of lemmas: Jcost_hasInteraction, Prcl_entangling, Gcosh_satisfies_hyperbolic, FourthGate.Jcost_has_dAlembert_structure for the positive claims, and Fquad_noInteraction, Padd_not_entangling, Gquad_satisfies_flat, FourthGate.Fquad_not_dAlembert_structure for the negative claims on the counterexamples.
why it matters in Recognition Science
This theorem completes the four-gate triangulated proof of inevitability, showing that d'Alembert structure plus the prior three gates forces $F=J$ and $P=RCL$ without extra hypotheses. It feeds the sibling full_inevitability_triangulated. The result aligns with framework landmarks T5 (J-uniqueness via $J(x)=(x+x^{-1})/2-1$), T6 (phi fixed point), and the RCL functional equation. No scaffolding remains; the four-gate version is unconditional (DOC_COMMENT).
scope and limits
- Does not derive the numerical value of phi from the gates.
- Does not address the spherical solution branch.
- Does not include calibration to the alpha band (137.03,137.04).
- Does not prove uniqueness of the RCL combiner without the interaction gate.
formal statement (Lean)
199theorem gates_consistent :
200 -- J has all four properties
201 HasInteraction Cost.Jcost ∧
202 IsEntangling Prcl ∧
203 SatisfiesHyperbolicODE Gcosh ∧
204 FourthGate.HasDAlembert Cost.Jcost ∧
205 -- Fquad/Padd have the opposite properties
206 ¬ HasInteraction Counterexamples.Fquad ∧
207 ¬ IsEntangling Padd ∧
208 SatisfiesFlatODE Gquad ∧
209 ¬ FourthGate.HasDAlembert Counterexamples.Fquad := by
proof body
Term-mode proof.
210 exact ⟨Jcost_hasInteraction, Prcl_entangling, Gcosh_satisfies_hyperbolic,
211 FourthGate.Jcost_has_dAlembert_structure,
212 Fquad_noInteraction, Padd_not_entangling, Gquad_satisfies_flat,
213 FourthGate.Fquad_not_dAlembert_structure⟩
214
215/-! ## Complete Inevitability with Four Gates -/
216
217/-- **Full Inevitability with Four Gates**: d'Alembert structure completes the proof.
218
219 Unlike the three-gate version which required a bridge hypothesis,
220 the four-gate version is fully proved:
221
222 d'Alembert structure + structural axioms ⟹ F = J ⟹ P = RCL
223-/
depends on (35)
-
all -
all -
bridge -
all -
has -
Fquad -
Gquad -
Padd -
Gcosh -
Gcosh_satisfies_hyperbolic -
Gquad -
Gquad_satisfies_flat -
SatisfiesFlatODE -
SatisfiesHyperbolicODE -
IsEntangling -
Padd -
Padd_not_entangling -
Prcl -
Prcl_entangling -
Fquad_not_dAlembert_structure -
HasDAlembert -
Jcost_has_dAlembert_structure -
Fquad_noInteraction -
HasInteraction -
Jcost_hasInteraction -
required -
is -
is -
is -
is