Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 46
Worked Example 17 — Boolean overlap without stage collapse Because higher SM stages imply SM1, ¬SM1 can imply non-SM status at many later orders. Yet IH¬SM1 and IH¬SM20 retain different source identities and inheritance depths. Status: intensional HGL distinction. Worked Example 18 — Stage 100 depth dIHstageSF100=99. Status: theorem from the inheritance-depth recurrence. Worked Example 19 — No nested PA 𝑃𝐴𝑃𝐴𝑥 ( ) ( ) is rejected by the core type grammar. The higher hierarchy uses , not nested PA. 𝐼𝐻𝑃𝐴𝑥 ( ) ( ) Status: syntax/type rule. Worked Example 20 — Female typing is not PA distribution FemaleTypeSF1 is a category axiom. It does not imply that the standalone route is present at Stage 1. 𝑃𝐴𝑥 ( ) Status: type distinction. Worked Example 21 — Exact Stage 4 ExactSF4=SF4∧¬SF5. Because full HGL inheritance depth differs between the two stages, this is not rendered unsatisfiable by a truth-functional saturation collapse. Status: formal definition plus depth theorem. Worked Example 22 — Woman-development during stage stasis Suppose for five years while maturity changes. This satisfies HGL because no axiom 𝑠𝐹𝑡 ( ) = 4 𝐷𝐹𝑡 ( ) equates and . 𝑠𝐹 𝐷𝐹 Status: consistency/countermodel. Worked Example 23 — Puberty does not prove stage advancement An Archfemale can undergo ordinary female puberty while remaining SF3. Therefore puberty alone does not entail SF4. Status: non-entailment. Worked Example 24 — High stage does not prove maturity A child could, if the fictional causal schedule permits it, be SF12 while still developmentally immature. Stage is not age or maturity. Status: non-entailment.
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:46.