e_201131
plain-language theorem explainer
For the concrete multi-index (2,0,1,1,3,1) on Fin 4, the summed Regge coupling numerator equals eight times the tabulated explicit kernel value. Gravity analysts cite it as one cell of the 4D midpoint M2–TT identity. The proof is a single kernel decision on two closed integer expressions.
Claim. Let $a,b,c,d,i,j\in\{0,1,2,3\}$ with $(a,b,c,d,i,j)=(2,0,1,1,3,1)$. Then the folded coupling numerator at those indices equals $8$ times the explicit integer kernel entry at the same indices.
background
This module sits in the 4D Regge exact-midpoint analysis: one proves that a summed numerator built from coupling contributions coincides with eight times a closed-form integer table on every sextuple of Fin-4 indices. The module doc frames the work as chunk 8 of that identity, discharged by 256 kernel decisions.
The numerator is defined by folding a fixed coupling list: start at 0 and add each contribution at the six indices. The explicit kernel is a pattern-matched integer table on Fin-4 sextuples (sample clauses give values such as 4, -2, and so on). Both objects live in the kernel-certificate module imported here.
The local claim is only the single cell with indices (2,0,1,1,3,1). Sibling theorems cover the other cells in the same chunk.
proof idea
One-line proof by decide. Both sides reduce to concrete integers: the left-hand side evaluates the fold of contributions at the fixed indices; the right-hand side is eight times the matching clause of the explicit table. Lean’s decision procedure checks integer equality; no lemmas beyond the two definitions are invoked.
why it matters
The parent theorem is the full assembly identity: for every $a,b,c,d,i,j$ in Fin 4, the numerator equals eight times the explicit kernel. That proof introduces the six indices and runs fin_cases on each, so each concrete cell theorem (including this one) is the leaf that closes one branch.
In the Recognition gravity stack this identity is bookkeeping for the 4D Regge midpoint M2–TT comparison: once every cell matches, the summed coupling form may be replaced by the closed table. It does not itself invoke the forcing chain (T5–T8) or the Recognition Composition Law; it is pure discrete kernel certification underneath the continuum gravity claims.
Switch to Lean above to see the machine-checked source, dependencies, and usage graph.