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>
didericis
b72c38b8ce
