analysisAction_count
analysisAction_count establishes that the inductive type of coarse computational actions for Option A empirical tests has cardinality nine. Researchers implementing the Recognition Science empirical schedule would cite this to confirm the complete action inventory. The proof is a one-line decision procedure that enumerates the nine constructors of AnalysisAction.
claimThe set of coarse computational actions needed to test a protocol has cardinality nine, where the set consists of the nine constructors fitFactorModel, fitDiscreteCollapse, plateauDetection, countRegulatoryStates, estimatePhiPowerRatio, trainMultiaxisDecoder, fitSharedResponseCoefficient, benchmarkCircuitAddressing, and orderProgressionTest.
background
The module defines concrete analysis action classes for the scheduled Option A empirical tests. The schedule determines the sequence of tests to run first, while this file specifies the kind of computation each test requires. AnalysisAction is the inductive type whose nine constructors enumerate the distinct tasks. Upstream results include the abbrev Action as real numbers from RSNativeUnits and the def A as active edge count per tick (equal to 1) from IntegrationGap, which satisfies the phi-power balance identity at D=3.
proof idea
The proof is a one-line wrapper that applies the decide tactic. This succeeds because AnalysisAction is a finite inductive type with exactly nine constructors, making its Fintype.card decidable by direct enumeration and rfl.
why it matters in Recognition Science
This theorem supplies the nine_actions field in the downstream empiricalActionPlanCert definition, which certifies the full Option A empirical action plan. It fills the requirement for a finite, enumerated set of computations in the Recognition Science framework, consistent with the eight-tick octave and the need for concrete tests on the phi-ladder. No open questions remain; the enumeration is closed.
scope and limits
- Does not establish the physical necessity of any listed action.
- Does not provide implementation details or resource costs for the actions.
- Does not verify the action list against specific experimental outcomes.
- Does not address ordering or dependencies among the nine actions.
Lean usage
def empiricalActionPlanCert : EmpiricalActionPlanCert where nine_actions := analysisAction_count action_injective := analysisAction_injective c3_first_action := c3_action c8_second_action := c8_action c5_third_action := c5_action
formal statement (Lean)
36theorem analysisAction_count : Fintype.card AnalysisAction = 9 := by
proof body
Decided by rfl or decide.
37 decide
38
39/-- Action required by each implemented Option A combination. -/