Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 260
Test PEX13. “HF2 contains UD(HF1).” Expected: Accept. Test PEX14. “HF2 contains NOT FD(HF1).” Expected: Reject. Test PEX15. “HF3 uses the same five-role schema over HF2/HM2.” Expected: Accept. Test PEX16. “UF2 automatically inherits the five-role HF schema.” Expected: Reject. Test PEX17. “Limit SF^lambda excludes PH(SM^beta) for every beta<lambda.” Expected: Accept. Test PEX18. “Negating NOT PH(SM1) yields PH(SM1).” Expected: Accept. Test PEX19. “A specific breast size follows from NOT PH(SM1).” Expected: Reject. Test PEX20. “DUQB can use the explicit UD(HF1) in HF2 to derive SQI when DimLift holds.” Expected: Accept. Appendix BC — Deduction / Inference / Causality Status Table in Prose D: formula membership, IH/SIH projection, PH/NOT-PH status explicitly conjunctive, UD/FD status explicitly conjunctive, dimensional-count facts, De Morgan consequences, and quality conclusions only when named bridge premises are satisfied. HI: structural expectations about richer discrimination, interaction complexity, and diagnostic difficulty not forced in every model. CD: exact physical consequences obtained from explicit causal laws whose antecedents are satisfied by the logical architecture. CI: plausible biological consequences supported by architecture without a complete causal mapping. ILL: examples used to make the ontology understandable; they are not canonical phenotype facts. OPEN: questions include whether Ultra/Apex later receive PH-own/NOT-PH-opposite strengthening in addition to their now-canonical UD term, whether Hyper/Ultra/Apex local nonflawhood is ever upgraded with NOT-FD, whether strict phenotype-profile novelty PH-10 is adopted, and how major-stage constructors transform the Profile-Exclusion architecture. Appendix BD — Compiler Complexity after the 8/6 Correction A literal Stage3+ successor expression has six recursive predecessor occurrences, not seven. Four target the same-side predecessor through IH, PH, UD, and NOT-FD; two target the opposite predecessor through IH under structured negation and NOT-PH. Naive copied syntax trees therefore grow approximately as 6^n, while a provenance DAG shares the two predecessor state objects and stores typed operator edges. SIH/LSCC domains remain symbolic descriptors, so transfinite domains are never literally enumerated. Appendix BE — Phenotype Atlas: Profile Possession versus Profile Exclusion Same-side PH can support a whole inherited phenotype organization rather than isolated traits. Opposite NOT-PH prevents treating the target as possessing the complete opposite predecessor profile, but does not imply absence of every individual trait that might also occur in that profile. Shared traits, overlapping outward morphology, and different whole-profile identity are therefore jointly possible. This distinction is especially important for high Archstages: two bodies can share numerous visible features while differing in which complete profile architectures are positively possessed, which are excluded, which axes are superinherited, and what whole-quality bridges apply. Appendix BF — Male/Female Mirror Audit Every foundational female correction has an exact male structural mirror: exchange SF<->SM, HF<->HM, x<->y with the existing NOT placement, FemaleType<->MaleType, and female/male phenotype-domain labels where applicable. Mirror symmetry does not mean biological phenotype identity; it means the formal operator topology is symmetric.
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:260.