Pith. sign in
structure

FrameworkSig

definition
show as:
module
IndisputableMonolith.Verification.CPMBridge.Initiality
domain
Verification
line
24 · github
papers citing
none yet

plain-language theorem explainer

A minimal packaging of one domain's CPM constants bundle, exposing only what universality checks need. Anyone assembling the four-domain universality hypothesis or the RS cone witness cites this carrier type. It is a pure structure definition: one field, no proof obligations.

Claim. A framework signature for a domain is a record carrying a single CPM constants bundle $(K_{\mathrm{net}}, C_{\mathrm{proj}}, C_{\mathrm{eng}}, C_{\mathrm{disp}})$ with $K_{\mathrm{net}} \ge 0$. No further axioms are imposed at this level.

background

The module builds a lightweight CPM-to-RS initiality skeleton: record cone-projection constants across independent domains, then show that matching the RS invariants $K_{\mathrm{net}}=1$ and $C_{\mathrm{proj}}=2$ forces a unique constants witness equal to the RS instance.

Upstream, Constants is the abstract CPM bundle with four real parameters and the nonnegativity side-condition on $K_{\mathrm{net}}$. The present structure wraps exactly that bundle and nothing else, so domain-level signatures stay thin enough for cross-domain comparison.

The intended consumers are the four-slot universality hypothesis (Hodge, RH, NS, Goldbach) and the fixed RS cone witness built from RS.coneConstants.

proof idea

No proof. Single-field structure definition whose sole component is a CPM Constants record. Instantiation is by supplying that bundle (as in the RS witness definition downstream).

why it matters

Gives the common carrier type for the initiality bridge. Downstream, the four-domain universality hypothesis is four copies of this signature, and the RS cone witness is one concrete instance. Matching checks later compare only the key invariants $K_{\mathrm{net}}=1$, $C_{\mathrm{proj}}=2$ while leaving energy and dispersion free. That is the constants-level step toward a category-theoretic uniqueness argument and toward exclusivity on the physics side. It does not itself invoke the forcing chain (T0–T8) or the Recognition Composition Law; it only stages the constants data those arguments will identify.

Switch to Lean above to see the machine-checked source, dependencies, and usage graph.