Commit Graph

2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
didericis 4ceae9c68a face_monochromatic_pairs: rename check_conj_3_8_scaled → check_conj_final_scaled; add n=21-24 test
Rename the shared helper module to a number-resistant name. Update
all 26 dependent scripts via sed.

Add experiments/test_n_21_to_24.py — extends the empirical check
beyond |V(G)| ≤ 20 to n_G ∈ [21, 24]. Checks per chord-apex+Kempe
colouring:
  (1) h_φ constant on V(K_b)? (counterexample to Corollary 5.4)
  (2) h_φ constant on V(K_b) ∪ V(K_c)? (counterexample to Conj 5.1)
  (3) Deciding face exists?

Writes results incrementally to test_n_21_to_24_results.jsonl (one
JSON line per triangulation, plus n-level and grand summaries).
Emits PROGRESS lines every 10 minutes (default) to stdout for live
monitoring.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-25 08:01:29 -04:00
didericis b72c38b8ce face_monochromatic_pairs: diagnostic scripts for Path 4 (Heawood
constancy on V(K_b) U V(K_c))

Three empirical checks on all chord-apex+Kempe colourings up to
n = 20 (142,812 colourings):

1. check_heawood_on_kempe.py
   - Sum_v h_phi(v): not zero in general; 17.6% of colourings have
     sum 0, the rest range in {+-4, +-8, +-12, +-16, +-20, +-24}.
     So the global "Heawood sum = 0" identity fails.
   - h_phi constant on V(K_b) U V(K_c): NEVER (0/142,812). This is
     the central empirical result -- by Lemma 5.3's contrapositive
     it gives an empirical proof of Conjecture 5.1 on these
     surrogates.

2. check_heawood_per_kempe_cycle.py
   - Sum_{V(K_b)} h_phi and sum_{V(K_c)} h_phi range widely (-20 to
     +20), with only ~23% zero. So the "Heawood sum on each Kempe
     cycle = 0" identity also fails -- the per-cycle sum is not the
     right invariant.

3. check_heawood_pair_mismatch.py
   - For each of 16 named-vertex pairs (v_n with each A_j, A_j with
     A_k for j, k in {i, ..., i+4}), counts how often h_phi differs.
     No pair is *always* differing -- the closest are consecutive
     pairs (A_j, A_{j+1}) at ~75% diff. So the Heawood mismatch
     enforcing non-constancy on V(K_b) U V(K_c) is diffuse, not at
     a fixed pair.

Together these results confirm Path 4 (Conjecture 5.1 reduces via
Lemma 5.3 to showing h_phi non-constant on V(K_b) U V(K_c)) but
rule out the simplest single-pair-identity proof; the structural
obstruction lives elsewhere (likely a topological/cycle-winding
argument or a chord-apex/Kempe-spike colour cascade).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-24 23:18:52 -04:00