The image and limit

How many limits a growth law has, what a cheapest-move policy converges to, and the local invariant that decides whether the openings ever stop.

A growth law is a structural demand plus a greedy move: extend the modulus N by the least m ≥ 2 meeting the demand (Growth). Each filed demand's GREEDY policy realizes one fatebreadth (independence) seats every prime, depth (λ, the exponent of the unit group, must grow) collapses onto one prime's column, mortality (capacity with λ frozen) halts. Every run has a limit: the supernatural number ∏p pep whose exponents, each in {0, 1, 2, …, ∞}, record how deep the run ever took each prime. The three fates are three properties of that limit, and they are the extremes of a larger body: the whole set of limits a demand can reach at all.

Two policies matter. The free policy class of a demand admits every move the demand allows; the greedy policy takes the least admissible move at every step. Both have a set of reachable limits, and the greedy set is a single point wherever “least” names a single move — though not ONLY there, which is what the trichotomy below turns on.

The fate image

Fix a demand L and a seed s, the modulus a run starts from. The image Im(L, s) is the set of limits reachable from s by the whole free policy class. Five demands are filed and they have five different images — so a demand is not pinned by the fate its greedy policy happens to realize.

The fate image rule

Writing S for an infinite set of primes disjoint from the support of s:

demandimage
transparency W(λ(s)) — one finite point
semisimplicity s·∏pS p
independence s·∏pS pep, 1 ≤ ep < ∞
new idempotents every multiple of s of infinite support
dynamics every infinite multiple of s

The last four nest strictly in that order; transparency sits outside the chain, being the only one whose single member is finite. Every image parameterizes the same way — a SUPPORT choice, then an EXPONENT choice on it — and the three fates are its extremes. Mortality pins both coordinates minimal and is the only true corner. Breadth pins the support maximal and leaves the exponents free; depth pins an exponent maximal and leaves the support free: each is a FACE, extremal in one coordinate. So two runs can both hold the depth fate and still differ, and a generic member of an image is interior and holds none of the three — a free policy holding no fate is the ordinary condition, not an anomaly. The two coordinates being separately free is also why fate purity fails over Z for free policies: 2·∏(odd primes) carries breadth and depth at once and is reached under both demands that host both. Greedy independence lands where the two coordinates are extreme in opposite directions — every prime, every exponent 1 — which is the primorial limit.

Scope. The chain is a SQUAREFREE-SEED statement: from any other seed semisimplicity admits nothing, its image is the single point {s}, and it leaves the chain by the same door transparency never entered. Independence reaches its shape from any seed, the seed's own exponents frozen. Closure halves exhaustive over a state × move battery, reach halves constructed plus a stated continuation argument; the extremes are a synthesis over the five. Redrawn over F2[x] — states monic polynomials, moves of degree ≥ 1 — the same five shapes, the same chain and the same extremes, 0 mismatches against the Z table.

verifiers: explore_fate_image.py, explore_fate_image_ff.py

Two things the greedy reading cannot see. A free policy under the dynamics demand reaches 2 from the void, the seed 1 — push 4, not 2, and λ moves — where greedy dynamics locks the 3-column and never opens the 2-window at all, so that window's invisibility at birth belongs to greed and not to the demand. And an image is not determined by the fates it contains: new idempotents and dynamics agree on all three fates and differ on everything else.

How many limits a cheapest-move policy has

Over Z the greedy policy has exactly one limit by definition rather than by measurement: “least m” is a total order, so no run ever chooses. Off Z it is not — over F2[x] the void's first dynamics move is a three-way tie between x2, (x+1)2 and x2+x+1, all at cost 2 — and the set of limits the minimal-move policy class reaches is the greedy image. In a ring past Z the primes are places, each carrying a degree: the degree of the irreducible for polynomials, the logarithm of the norm — the size of the residue field — for a number ring. In a quadratic number ring a rational prime either splits into two distinct places, stays inert as one place of degree 2, or ramifies as one place repeated — the multiplicity being the ramification index e. A move that seats a place not yet seated is an opening, and an opening SURVIVES when the choice it made is still visible in the limit.

The cardinality trichotomy rule

Under the dynamics demand the greedy image takes three cardinalities across the rings run, and the space between them is empty. Over Z it is a single point. Over a quadratic number ring it is FINITE: the run LOCKS — past some move it never opens a new place again — so only finitely many openings ever survive. Over F2[x] and over the coordinate ring of an elliptic curve over F2 the openings recur forever and each choice is made permanent, so the image has the cardinality of the CONTINUUM. Nothing sits between: a surviving opening is a tie, hence carries at least 2 choices, and a run's openings are countable — finitely many surviving give a finite product, countably many give at least 2ℵ₀ and at most ℵ₀ℵ₀, which is the same cardinal. So no greedy image is countably infinite. All three come from one formula — the product, over the surviving openings, of the tie multiplicity at each — so what separates the rings is how many openings survive and not how deep their arithmetic runs. Over Z the product is empty: the run opens constantly and not one of its openings is a tie.

Scope. The dynamics demand, and the (demand, ring) pair rather than the ring: greedy independence over F2[x] ties at its openings exactly as dynamics does and still reaches one point, because coprimality READMITS the declined sibling a move later and no opening survives. The number-ring half is a rule in range, censused seeds over two quadratic rings growing by ideals and by elements alike, 0 branch merges; the continuum half runs over F2[x] and the complete h = 1..5 elliptic ladder at q = 2; the empty middle is a derivation from the formula and inherits its scope. The SIZE of a finite image is not claimed here — the per-opening product is a lower bound on it, the correction being a within-degree multiplicity the product does not carry.

verifiers: explore_greedy_image_nf.py, explore_greedy_image_ec.py

An opening fails to survive in exactly two ways, and neither can fail endlessly, which is what keeps the middle of that trichotomy empty. A choice can be ERASED, two permanently distinct runs reaching one limit because the move a locked run makes forever afterwards carries BOTH members of a tied pair to infinity together and forgets which run seated which — but erasure needs such a move, which is what a lock is, and a lock stops the openings. A choice can also lose PERMANENCE, the declined sibling returning later as a passenger on someone else's move. That one is real over an elliptic ring whose ideal classes — the finite group measuring how far the ring's ideals are from being generated by a single element — number at least 3, and it is capped: a return is itself a seating, depths never fall, so each candidate is lost at most once and only the openings before its seating can fail. The cap holds for a reason smaller than the two classical theorems first used for it — that group is finite and each cost level holds finitely many ideals, so every class has a least cost attained finitely often, and any Dedekind ring with those two properties has a bounded supply of passengers.

What a run converges to

Cardinality counts the futures and says nothing about what one of them is. A limit in a ring is an exponent per place, exactly as a supernatural number is an exponent per rational prime, and the whole of it can be written down. What sets the shape is a clock. Deepening a place already seated — a repeat move — advances a counter, the tick T, and a move's price is read against it: an exponent already at or under the tick buys nothing new, so a repeat must climb past it and costs the degree times the climb. Over F2[x] the tick DOUBLES at every repeat.

The ideal limit theorem

Where the tick doubles, a greedy run's limit is

C  +  d openedPd,\infty \cdot C \;+\; \sum_{d \ \mathrm{opened}} P_d,

one place C carrying an unbounded exponent, one further place Pd at exponent 1 at each degree d the run ever opens, and every seated place other than C standing at exponent 1 FOREVER — a single deep coordinate over a flat support that never stops growing. C is itself one of the opened degrees' places exactly when its degree is 2. Four facts make it. The tick doubles at a repeat move and a fresh opening leaves it alone, so every exponent ever written is 0, 1, or the tick at its own repeat plus 1. No place's price is ever below d·T/2. A deepened place of degree 1 is therefore permanent, every rival's price rising by at least as much as its own at every later repeat. And a fresh opening at degree d multiplies λ by 2d−1, so degree 1 is never eligible — 21−1 = 1 divides everything — while the fresh ladder opens degrees 2, 3, 4, … one place at a time forever, since 2d−1 carries a prime no smaller one does, by Bang's theorem, whose only exceptions are d = 1 and d = 6, where a square of 3 does the same work.

Scope. Proved by induction over the move model, calling on no computation, for runs growing by IDEALS in a world whose tick doubles; and a rule in range, 11 branches at six function-field rings walked 300 moves each with every move's tick and exponent read. The move model is base 2 throughout, and the leg that makes the support grow FOREVER leans on it: Bang's theorem is the base-2 Zsygmondy, so the endless ladder is a claim about F2 and not about doubling ticks in general. The deep place's degree is 1 or 2 — 0 of 140 censused repeat moves at degree 3 or above — and that ceiling is a consequence of the doubling, not of the shape.

verifier: explore_greedy_limit.py

“Every other coordinate stops at 1 forever” is the doubling clock's, and one world over it is false. Where the tick instead lands exactly on the exponent it answers — which is a number ring — a place can be carried above exponent 1 by one move made while prices are still low and then be priced out of every later one: a strand, permanent because the repeated move a locked run makes costs the same forever after. Measured in both quadratic rings: from the void neither seats a ramified place at all, both locking on a split place of norm 3 at cost 3 over a support flat as stated above. Plant one and the affordable ones strand — the ramified place over 2 stands at exponent 3, the one over 5 at exponent 2, each priced above the locked run's own recurrent cost, while the third such place the two rings have sits at norm 23 against a lock at 3 and cannot afford even its one cheap move. So a number ring's flat support is the arithmetic of its openings and not a theorem about rings.

The element limit rule

Grow by ELEMENTS rather than by ideals — every state and every move generated by one element — and a move seats a whole bundle of places at once. A bundle can raise an exponent with no repeat move at all, breaking the exponent ceiling the ideal limit rests on, but it cannot do so often: an opening costs the bare degree when the place it seats is PRINCIPAL — generated by a single element — and strictly more otherwise, and past a handful of degrees there are principal places to spare, so a greedy run stops paying for bundles within its first few moves. After that the only source left is the run's own repeat move, one per ERA — the stretch between two repeats — against an era whose length doubles. The limit is then ∞·C, plus at most the places of one orbit of the ideal classes, fixed by C's own class and gaining about one unit an era, plus one place at exponent 1 at each opened degree. It collapses to the ideal shape exactly when that orbit is empty or is C itself. So the two ways of growing differ by a logarithmically deep coordinate and never by the headline.

Scope. Proved for the steady state; a rule in range over six rings walked 300 moves on every branch a capped tie sweep enumerated — three extra coordinates at one ring on every branch carried, three to five at another, those two being the rings whose sweep hit its cap. Whether the extra coordinates are UNBOUNDED is OPEN: at one ring the bundle income stopped dead once a parity locked. The element world has no reordering lemma — a declined minimal move is still minimal at the successor at only 46 of 85 types at one ring — so its shapes are read over every branch and never off one continuation.

verifier: explore_element_limit.py

The argument uses no geometry

The curve enters none of it, and neither does the ring.

The limit belongs to the schedule, not the ring rule

Take the ring out and four ingredients remain: items carrying an integer DEGREE; one GLOBAL CLOCK multiplying the tick by b whenever any item is deepened; a PRICE f(degree, staleness), staleness being how far the tick has moved since that item last did; and a fresh-opening DISCOUNT spendable m times at each degree, the least degree born with its discount already spent. The ring enters only as a SUPPLY — how many items each degree holds. Dial each as far as the move model admits — b at 3/2, 2, 3 and 4, the degree's exponent at 0, 1 and 2 and an additive form, one to three discounts, every born-spent set — and ONE INFINITE COORDINATE survives every dial but one. The dial that kills it is the degree-blind price, which cannot tell a cheap item from a dear one — and only where the clock's steps are wider than 1. At step 1 an opening and a repeat cost the same, the tie deepens rather than opens, and one item runs away regardless.

A FLAT SUPPORT is the weaker half and does not survive as far, so the two are separate claims. At b ≥ 3 the ceiling has already fallen to the least degree while the clock still seats an item above it, so that item is seated, clocked, then undercut and STRANDED above exponent 1 forever — exactly one such item on every branch that hands the clock on, and none on the branch whose first repeat was also its last. The doubling clock of the theorem above is precisely where that cannot happen.

Scope. Proved for the abstract schedule, and a rule in range: 60 walks over ten schedules and six supplies, with the abstract walker certified equal to the exact one in cost, in every move type's multiplicity and in the covered set at 120 states over each of six supplies. The dial survey is crossed with the clock's landing rule rather than read beside it — 7 landing rules × 8 dials × 2 clocks — and the single infinite coordinate holds at all 49 crossed cells whose price can see a degree UNDER THE GLOBAL CLOCK. Give each item its own tick instead and the count standing above exponent 1 moves with the dial and with the clock's step width together, which is the mixed run below. Strands arise on both sides by different mechanisms — there the ceiling falls under a seated item, in a mixed run the item's own step widens under it.

verifiers: explore_price_schedule.py, explore_tick_pump.py

That dynamics has a name outside this subject. Size-based priority with aging is a scheduling discipline in production use — its UNIX form halves a usage counter every second, which is this clock at b = 2 — and it has a deterministic limit analysis of its own: Epema's decay-usage steady state (ACM TOCS 16(4), 1998) partitions a fixed job set into monopolisers, a shared middle, and classes that starve at share exactly zero. The claims above are narrower than that overlap suggests: a size-discriminated ceiling in closed form, under ADMISSION from a supply that never runs out, so the support itself grows — which a fixed job set does not do.

Lock or sprawl is the characteristic

Whether the openings ever stop is what separates a finite image from a continuum, and it turns on a single local invariant.

The lock/sprawl dichotomy rule

Replace the clock's factor b by the SET of exponents the tick may stand at, the tick advancing to the least member at or above the exponent just landed on. That set is exactly {a : v(a+1) > v(a)} for v the valuation λ carries at the place, and the whole of what it gives the dynamics is its gap: the distance from one member to the next, which is the price of a repeat move divided by the degree. A ring whose gaps are BOUNDED stops opening new places, at about the deep place's degree times the largest gap; a ring whose gaps are UNBOUNDED opens forever. Which one a ring has is settled by the principal-unit filtration (O/Pa)* = k* × (1+P)/(1+Pa): the p-th power map sends level i to p·i in equal characteristic — a multiplicative set, gaps unbounded, SPRAWL — and to min(i+e, p·i) in mixed characteristic, which is i+e past a leading stretch — constant gap, LOCK, with the gap the RAMIFICATION INDEX e. A set whose gap grows without being multiplicative is realized by no Dedekind domain with finite residue fields, which is where λ is defined at all. So the dichotomy is the characteristic — equal against mixed — and what varies within the locking side is ramification and nothing else. That is the same local invariant the module law states from the other end: its eventually constant price qe = pef is this gap's cost, and its rank-∞ case is this unbounded gap.

Scope. The arithmetic half is a derivation from the filtration, checked at the three worlds run. The measured half is a rule in range: every place of norm ≤ 200 in two quadratic number rings — 90 in all, 82 split, 5 inert, 3 ramified — read at depths 1..24, the tail gap equalling the ramification index at 90 of 90, 1 at every split and inert place and 2 at every ramified one, 0 off; beside three function-field degrees whose gap is already 16 by depth 24. Three of the 90 carry a LEADING stretch of wider gaps, and they are exactly the three with p − 1 ≤ e — the depths below e/(p−1), where the principal units are still squaring rather than stepping. The stop location is measured at 2, 2, 3, 5 against products 1, 2, 3, 5 at gaps 1, 2, 3 and 5, exact at three and floored at the fourth — measured in the abstract schedule, where a gap can be dialled, and not in a ring. The stop law is a COMPARISON of two curves — a bounded recurrent price against an opening cost that grows in the degree — and where openings never get dearer a bounded gap stops nothing.

verifiers: explore_tick_pump.py, explore_lock_budget.py

A ring is a schedule of exactly that kind rather than an analogue of one: its unramified places carry gap 1 and its ramified ones gap e in the same run, and a place's price in a populated state equals its own lone-place price at 472 of 472 readings. So a ring's places do not share one gap, and the recurrent cost everything else is priced against is then the least PRODUCT of a seated place's degree with its own gap — not the least gap. A gap-3 place at degree 1 holds that slot against every gap-1 place above degree 3, while a single gap-1 place at the least degree freezes an entire wide population. And a wide place cannot simply wait for a cheap depth: its gap falls back to 1 only at its own set's members, and the depths it can reach miss every one of them after the first step, so its cheap move comes exactly once. That one move is what mixing adds to the limit, and it is the strand.

What this dichotomy decides at the level of the machine — the same apparatus read as a computation, its depth face one borrow short of Turing-complete and its element face universal bare — is the Computation section.