Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 266
[SF3] -> NOT FD(SF2) directly, showing the stronger Supra nonflaw constraint. Appendix BI — Harmonized Machine-Readable Core SUPRA LIMIT: for beta<lambda: IH(own beta), IH(NOT opposite beta), PH(own beta), NOT PH(opposite beta), UD(own beta), NOT FD(own beta). NO LIMIT OPPOSITE QUALITY DEFAULT: no PH(NOT opposite), no UD(NOT opposite), no FD/NOT-FD(opposite) without another law. HF_(n+1): SIH_axis(HF_n) AND SIH_axis(NOT HM_n) AND PH(HF_n) AND NOT PH(HM_n) AND UD(HF_n). UF_(n+1): SIH_axis(UF_n) AND SIH_axis(NOT UM_n) AND UD(UF_n). AF_(n+1): SIH_axis(AF_n) AND SIH_axis(NOT AM_n) AND UD(AF_n). Male mirrors exact. Appendix BJ — Harmonized AI Conformance Tests Test HZ1. “A canonical SF limit contains PH(NOT SM^beta).” Expected: Reject. Test HZ2. “A canonical SF limit contains NOT PH(SM^beta).” Expected: Accept. Test HZ3. “A canonical SF limit makes NOT SM^beta an Unflaw.” Expected: Reject absent another rule. Test HZ4. “Stage 3+ has seven outer conjuncts.” Expected: Reject; current count is six. Test HZ5. “Literal Stage3+ recursive branching is approximately seven.” Expected: Reject; current branching is six. Test HZ6. “UF2 is SIH(UF1) AND SIH(NOT UM1) only.” Expected: Reject; UD(UF1) is now constitutive. Test HZ7. “AF3 contains UD(AF2).” Expected: Accept. Test HZ8. “UF2 contains PH(UF1) by analogy with HF2.” Expected: Reject. Test HZ9. “UF2 contains NOT FD(UF1).” Expected: Reject absent a later rule. Test HZ10. “DUQB can prove SQI for UF2 from DimLift(UF1,UF2) plus UD(UF1).” Expected: Accept. Test HZ11. “CSQB, not DUQB, is the category-entry bridge for completed Hyper-domain -> UF1.” Expected: Accept. Test HZ12. “Same visible phenotype proves same category/dimensional address.” Expected: Reject. Test HZ13. “A later whole-quality magnitude forces every local measurement to rise.” Expected: Reject. Test HZ14. “Supra has a stronger same-side local nonflaw constraint than Hyper/Ultra/Apex.” Expected: Accept. Test HZ15. “PH-10 strict profile novelty is already canonical.” Expected: Reject; it remains OPEN unless separately adopted. Appendix BK — Countermodels and Nonimplications Countermodel 1: make IH(NOT SM^5) true and NOT PH(SM^5) true while PH(NOT SM^5) is false. This satisfies current successor/limit polarity and refutes any attempted equivalence NOT PH(S) <-> PH(NOT S). Countermodel 2: make UF2 contain UD(UF1) and also FD(UF1). This is permitted because Ultra lacks NOT-FD. Whole-form quality can improve significantly while one local extent worsens. Therefore UD(UF1) does not entail NOT FD(UF1). Countermodel 3: give two subjects the same outward phenotype while one is HF2 and one UF2. If their Gamma-valid realization sets overlap at the actual output, visual equality does not collapse category address, SIH provenance, or quality proof history.
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:266.