Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 177
3. What is inherited? IH(S) carries S’s defining properties forward and remembers S as the source. 4. What does the next stage do? It inherits its own previous stage and inherits the non-state of the opposite previous stage. 5. What actually grows? Inheritance depth and causal provenance, not the percentage of Female or Male. 6. What does PH add? Stage tells you which canonical PH profiles are possessed. It still does not tell you every unspecified concrete trait inside those profiles. 7. What does stage fail to tell you? It does not by itself fix maturity, environment/history, or every nonconstitutive concrete trait. A person can stay at one stage and keep developing as a woman or man. Appendix S — Final specialist checklist Before accepting any HGL proof, ask: 1. Is every operator well typed? 2. Did a NOT move across PA without a rule? 3. Did a NOT move across IH without a rule? 4. Did PA distribute? 5. Did IH distribute? 6. Did IH flatten? 7. Was inheritance invented from mere logical consequence? 8. Was category typing confused with a PA route? 9. Was SF2/SM2 written in the canonical form? 10. Was the higher recurrence applied only from Stage 2 onward? 11. Was Boolean projection confused with full state identity? 12. Was provenance preserved? 13. Was inheritance depth computed correctly? 14. Was an unspecified concrete phenotype claimed without PH-profile membership or a causal law? 15. Was stage confused with maturity? 16. Was biological HGL allowed to leak into psychology/conceptual domains? 17. Was a possible example misreported as a deduction? 18. Was the old fact “unbounded finite does not by itself entail transfinite” confused with the current, separately axiomatized Hyperomega/transfinite extension? 19. Was a deprecated whole-state antithesis operator reintroduced? 20. Can every “therefore” be annotated with a named rule? 1. If a theorem names SF^lambda/SM^lambda at a limit, was the limit state itself constructed rather than merely its quality assigned? 1. Is the successor variable ordinal-general where transfinite successors are used? 1. Was set-indexed limit closure confused with a literal finitely parsed conjunction? 1. Was any UD/FD status incorrectly invented for the opposite-side structured nonstate, whose current constitutive role is IH(NOT opposite) plus NOT PH(opposite)? 1. Was finite Significant Quality Increase distinguished from ordinary within-magnitude improvement? 1. Were address order, number of addresses, IH depth, and whole-quality magnitude kept type-distinct? 1. Was modal K/necessitation used only within a fixed address-relative normal modality and not confused with biological stage transition? 1. Was a higher-stage phenotype-space assumed to be a superset of a lower one? HGL permits opening, closing, modal strengthening, and compatibility restructuring.
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:177.