Hypergendered Logic Source

Hypergendered Logic — Page 165

HGL Source Framework · Page 165 of 293 · Source: Hypergendered Logic

Allowed outside: 
•​
ordinary Boolean equivalences on state nodes; 
•​
IH projection as an implication rule, not a destructive rewrite. 
Forbidden destructive rewrites: 
•​
PA distribution; 
•​
IH distribution; 
•​
PH distribution; 
•​
IH flattening; 
•​
PH flattening into component profiles; 
•​
NOT migration through PA; 
•​
NOT migration through IH; 
•​
NOT migration through PH; 
•​
replacement of PH(NOT S) with NOT PH(S) or the converse. 
K.4 Two proof graphs 
Maintain: 
1.​
a truth proof graph for ordinary consequences; 
2.​
a provenance graph for IH source inheritance; 
3.​
a phenotype-profile graph for PH source identity, profile membership, expression/maturation status, 
and any explicit causal mappings. 
A truth proof can prove T from IH(S) and S=>T without creating a provenance edge IH(T). Likewise, a 
visible trait resemblance does not create a PH(S) node unless the whole-profile criterion is actually satisfied. 
K.5 Memoization 
For a finite or ordinal-general successor SF(alpha+1), the canonical six-conjunct rule contains six recursive 
operand occurrences: four references to the same-side predecessor SF(alpha) through IH, PH, UD, and 
NOT-FD, and two references to the opposite-side predecessor SM(alpha) through IH(NOT SM(alpha)) and 
NOT PH(SM(alpha)). A naive copied syntax tree therefore satisfies approximately T(n+1)=6T(n)+O(1), giving 
exponential textual/tree growth Theta(6^n). This is not the correct storage model. A provenance-preserving 
DAG stores only two unique predecessor-state objects per successor and lets multiple typed operator edges 
point to them, making stage-object growth approximately linear before limit/SIH symbolic-domain effects are 
considered. 
K.5a Literal-expansion complexity: if every recursive occurrence copies its complete source subtree, a 
current Stage-3+ successor formula produces approximately six predecessor-subtree copies: four own-side 
occurrences through IH, PH, UD, and NOT-FD, plus two opposite-side occurrences through IH(NOT 
opposite) and NOT PH(opposite). Thus T(n+1)=6T(n)+O(1) and naive textual/tree size is Theta(6^n). This is 
only a warning model and should never be used for high-order computation. 
K.5b DAG complexity: finite Stage n stores one SF node and one SM node per order. Each successor side 
carries six typed recursive operator edges, but those edges target only two unique predecessor-state 
objects: the own-side predecessor and the opposite-side predecessor. Repeated references do not duplicate 
the referenced stage object. Provenance remains exact because edge labels preserve 
IH/PH/NOT-PH/UD/NOT-FD role and source identity. 
K.5c Limit-closure complexity: a limit stage is one LimF/LimM object whose predecessor domain is 
represented intensionally by an ordinal bound, not extensionally by an impossible-to-enumerate list when the 
bound is transfinite. A query such as beta<lambda? generates the relevant IH/PH/UD/FD closure facts on 
demand.

Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:165.