lag-log（Drafts）

On the Structural Non-Closure of the Riemann Hypothesis

A Formal Decomposition into Definitions, Lemmas, and Propositions

Definition 1 (Finite Observability)

Let $P$ be a mathematical property defined over an infinite domain $D$.
We say that $P$ is finitely observable if, for every finite subset $D_T \subset D$, the validity of $P$ on $D_T$ can be verified by a finite procedure.

Definition 2 (Global Control)

We say that a property $P$ over an infinite domain $D$ admits global control if there exists a finite argument or proof that excludes the existence of counterexamples anywhere in $D$.

Definition 3 (Structural Non-Closure)

A statement $P$ is said to exhibit structural non-closure if:

1. $P$ is finitely observable, and

2. No finite procedure derived from the local structure of $D$ yields global control of $P$.

This definition is methodological and does not assert formal undecidability.

Lemma 1 (Finite Verification of the Riemann Hypothesis)

For any finite bound $T > 0$, the Riemann Hypothesis can be verified for all nontrivial zeros of $\zeta(s)$ with imaginary part $| \Im(s) | \le T$.

Justification

This follows from explicit numerical computations of zeta zeros and established verification algorithms.

Lemma 2 (Absence of Finite Exhaustion)

There exists no finite bound $T$ such that verification of the Riemann Hypothesis up to height $T$ implies its validity for all nontrivial zeros.

Justification

The implication would require a finite exhaustion principle for an infinite analytic domain, which is not supplied by current analytic or arithmetic structures.

Definition 4 (Observational Method)

An observational method is any analytic or computational technique whose conclusions are derived from finite sampling, truncation, or bounded analysis, even if expressed in asymptotic or limiting language.

Proposition 1 (Observational Nature of Phase-Based Analyses)

Recent phase-based or coordinate-transformed analyses of the Riemann zeta function constitute observational methods in the sense of Definition 4.

Argument

Such methods:

• Operate on truncated series or bounded regions,

• Rely on numerical stability or asymptotic regularity,

• Do not produce a finite mechanism enforcing global exclusion of zeros off the critical line.

Definition 5 (Non-Linearizable Structure)

A set $S \subset \mathbb{N}$ is said to be non-linearizable if there exists no finite generative or cumulative process whose iteration enumerates all elements of $S$.

Lemma 3 (Non-Linearizability of the Prime Set)

The set of prime numbers is non-linearizable in the sense of Definition 5.

Justification

Primes are characterized negatively (by irreducibility), lack a finite generative rule, and cannot be exhaustively produced by iteration of any fixed arithmetic process.

Replace Lemma 3 with the following strengthened statements

Definition 5′ (Finite-Rule Enumerability)

Let $S\subseteq \mathbb N$. We say $S$ is finitely-rule enumerable (FRE) if there exists a total computable function $f:\mathbb N\to\mathbb N$, specified by a finite description, such that

(Equivalently: $S$ is the range of a total computable function.)

Comment: This fixes “finite generative process” to a standard and non-handwavy notion.

Lemma 3A (Primes are not FRE by monotone gap-bounded generation)

There is no total computable $f:\mathbb N\to\mathbb N$ satisfying all of the following simultaneously:

1. $f$ is strictly increasing,

2. $\operatorname{range}(f)=\mathbb P$ (the set of primes),

3. There exists a computable bound $g$ such that for all $n$,

   \[f(n+1)-f(n)\le g(n).\]

Proof sketch

Assume such $f$ and $g$ exist. Then for each $n$, the next prime after $f(n)$ would be found by scanning at most $g(n)$ candidates and testing primality. This would yield a computable, effectively bounded “next-prime” operator with predetermined search radius. However, prime gaps are known to be unbounded (Euclid implies infinitely many primes; classical results imply arbitrarily long gaps, e.g. $(m+1)!+2,\dots,(m+1)!+(m+1)$ are all composite). Hence no uniform computable bound $g(n)$ can exist for the gap after the $n$-th prime, contradicting (3). ∎

What this achieves: It turns our “cannot be indexed (cumulated)” intuition into a precise obstruction: primes cannot be generated by an increasing process with computably controlled increments.

Lemma 3B (No finite-rule ‘local-update’ generator for primes)

Define a local-update generator to be a process that updates a state $x_n\in\mathbb N$ by a fixed computable rule

and outputs $x_n$. Suppose additionally that the update is local in the sense that there exists a computable function $h$ such that

Then no such local-update generator has output range exactly $\mathbb P$.

Proof

Immediate from Lemma 3A by letting $f(n)=x_n \space and\space g(n)=h(n)$. ∎

This directly formalizes: “Does not fall into the “smooth update” of exponential → logarithmic → linear”。

Proposition 3C (Primes are FRE but not ‘structurally linearizable’)

The set of primes $\mathbb P$ is FRE (e.g., by mapping $n\mapsto p_n$, the $n$-th prime), but it is not structurally linearizable under any generator whose update increments are computably controlled.

Explanation

This clarifies a subtle but crucial point:

• Of course primes are computably enumerable (and even decidable).

• The claim is not “primes are uncomputable.”

• The claim is that primes resist a restricted class of generators that would allow finite local control to propagate globally.

This is the exact kind of restriction you want for the “observability vs control” thesis.

How to integrate into your paper

Replace the old Lemma 3 with:

• Lemma 3A and Lemma 3B (as the rigorous core),

• then add Proposition 3C as a clarifying statement.

Then update Definition 5 (Non-Linearizable Structure) to something like:

Definition 5″ (Structurally Linearizable)

A set $S\subseteq\mathbb N$ is structurally linearizable if it is the range of a strictly increasing total computable $f$ with computably bounded increments.

Then Lemma 3 becomes:

Lemma 3′: The prime set $\mathbb P$ is not structurally linearizable.

This is now a mathematically crisp statement with a short proof.

Optional remark (stronger, meta-mathematical route)

If you want a “heavier” justification: one can remark that in broader classes of descriptions, deciding whether a given program enumerates exactly primes is not decidable (Rice-type reasoning). But We’d keep that as a remark, not the main pillar.

Proposition 2 (Inheritance of Non-Closure)

Analytic objects encoding non-linearizable structures inherit resistance to global closure.

Argument

The Riemann zeta function encodes prime distribution through its Euler product and explicit formulas.
Structural non-linearizability at the arithmetic level propagates to analytic representations, preventing finite global enforcement.

Proposition 3 (Structural Non-Closure of the Riemann Hypothesis)

The Riemann Hypothesis satisfies the conditions of structural non-closure (Definition 3).

Argument

1. By Lemma 1, RH is finitely observable.

2. By Lemma 2 and Proposition 2, no finite procedure derived from observational or local analytic methods yields global control.

Therefore, RH exhibits structural non-closure.

Corollary (Interpretation of Persistent Unresolved Status)

The persistence of the Riemann Hypothesis as an open problem is consistent with its structural non-closure and need not be attributed solely to the absence of technical tools.

Remark (On Logical Independence)

This framework does not claim that the Riemann Hypothesis is undecidable within standard axiomatic systems.
Rather, it identifies a methodological obstruction: finite observability does not naturally extend to infinite control in this context.

Conclusion

By decomposing the Riemann Hypothesis into formal notions of observability, control, and structural non-closure, we provide a framework that explains its peculiar status: maximal empirical support without formal resolution.
This perspective reframes future work not as a race toward closure, but as an exploration of the boundary between finite analysis and infinite assertion.

Appendix lag-log

(i) 階乗列で “arbitrarily long gaps” を最小限に証明し、ついでにそれを使って Lemma 3A を締め直し、最後に Proposition 2（inheritance）をより厳密な形に書き換え。
（比喩ゼロ／論文体／「どこまで言えるか」を明確に線引き）

A. Minimal proof of arbitrarily long prime gaps (factorial construction)

Lemma G (Arbitrarily long composite runs)

For every integer $L\ge 1$, there exist $L$ consecutive composite integers.

Proof

Fix $L\ge 1$ and set $N := (L+1)!$.
Consider the $L$ consecutive integers

For each $k \in {2,3,\dots,L+1}$, we have $k \mid N$ since $N=(L+1)!$. Hence $k \mid (N+k)$. Moreover $N+k > k$, so $N+k$ is composite.
Therefore all integers $N+2,\dots,N+(L+1)$ are composite, giving a run of $L$ consecutive composites. ∎

Corollary G1 (Prime gaps are unbounded)

Let $p_n$ denote the $n$-th prime and define the prime gap $g_n := p_{n+1}-p_n$. Then $\sup_n g_n = \infty$.

Proof

By Lemma G, for any $L$ there exists a block of $L$ consecutive composite integers. In any such block there are no primes, hence there is a pair of consecutive primes whose difference is at least $L+1$. Therefore prime gaps are unbounded. ∎

Note: This corollary is the only “gap fact” Lemma 3A needs.

B. Tightening Lemma 3A using the gap lemma

You previously had:

no increasing generator for primes with computably bounded increments.

We now state it cleanly with the proved ingredient.

Definition 5″ (Structurally linearizable set)

A set $S\subseteq\mathbb N$ is structurally linearizable if there exist total computable functions

such that:

1. $f$ is strictly increasing,

2. $\mathrm{range}(f)=S$,

3. for all $n$, $f(n+1)-f(n)\le b(n)$.

(Thus the generator admits a computable, stepwise upper bound on increments.)

Lemma 3A′ (Primes are not structurally linearizable)

Let $\mathbb P$ be the set of primes. Then $\mathbb P$ is not structurally linearizable.

Proof

Assume for contradiction that there exist total computable $f,b$ witnessing structural linearizability of $\mathbb P$.
Since $f$ is strictly increasing and has range $\mathbb P$, we must have $f(n)=p_{n+\ell}$ for some fixed offset $\ell\ge 0$ (because a strictly increasing enumeration of primes lists primes in increasing order, possibly starting later).
Then

By condition (3), $g_{n+\ell}\le b(n)$ for all $n$. Hence the prime gaps ${g_m}$ would be bounded above by the computable sequence ${b(n)}$ along all sufficiently large indices $m$, implying in particular that prime gaps are bounded. This contradicts Corollary G1 (prime gaps are unbounded). ∎

What this nails down: “指数化（累積化）できない” を 「局所更新で上限を設ける形の生成が不可能」 として厳密化した。

C. Rewriting Proposition 2 (inheritance of non-closure) more rigorously

元の Proposition 2 は「素数側の非線形性がゼータ側に伝播する」となっている。
ここを：

• “inheritance” を 曖昧な因果として書かない

• 明示公式／Euler 積／von Mangoldt 重みなど、既知の橋を踏む

• 「結論」を RHそのもの に直結させず、まず “観測的手法の限界” に落とす

つまり、主張の形式をこう変える：

prime-side structural non-closure ⇒ any analytic observable built from finite truncations cannot yield global exclusion.

この方向なら、過剰な主張を避けつつ、強い骨格になる。

Definition 6 (Truncation-based prime observable)

A truncation-based prime observable is any quantity of the form

where $N(T)$ is a finite cutoff depending on $T$, $w$ is a computable weight function, and $\Lambda$ is the von Mangoldt function.

This abstracts the common structure appearing in:

• truncated Euler-product / explicit-formula approximations,

• phase/argument reconstructions using $\zeta’/\zeta$,

• weighted prime sums used to approximate analytic features of $\zeta$.

Lemma 4 (Truncation observables cannot certify global exclusion)

Fix any truncation-based prime observable $\mathcal O_T$.
Then statements of the form

“$\mathcal O_T$ exhibits behavior $B$ for all $|t|\le T$, hence RH holds globally”

are not logically valid without an additional uniform control principle that bounds the truncation error uniformly over the entire infinite domain.

Proof sketch (methodological, but formal)

For each finite $T$, $\mathcal O_T$ depends only on finitely many $\Lambda(n)$ values (hence finitely many primes and prime powers).
Any inference from finite data to a universal claim requires a uniform bound on the remainder term

valid for all $t$ in an unbounded domain.
Absent such a uniform remainder bound, agreement on every finite window does not entail global validity. ∎

Important: 「できない」→ “必要な追加原理が要る” 。

Proposition 2′ (Prime-side unbounded irregularity obstructs uniform truncation control)

Assume only the elementary fact that prime gaps are unbounded (Corollary G1).
Then any framework that attempts to derive a global exclusion statement about zeros solely from truncation-based prime observables must supply a uniform control mechanism that does not rely on computably bounded local increments of prime structure.

Rationale (more explicit)

Unbounded prime gaps imply the absence of any computable bound on “how far one must search” to guarantee encountering the next prime after a given prime index.
Therefore, any attempt to upgrade finite-window stability of $\mathcal O_T$ to a global exclusion statement cannot proceed by a local-update / bounded-increment principle on the prime side (as ruled out by Lemma 3A′).
Consequently, the missing ingredient in such approaches is not “more computation,” but a genuinely new global control principle—one that is not reducible to bounded local propagation along prime structure. ∎

What changed:
“inheritance” を、「素数側の（局所的に閉じない）性質が切断観測からのグローバル保証を阻む」という 方法論命題に落とした。厳密度を上げ、言い過ぎを避ける。

D. How this plugs back into your main theorem spine

• Lemma G + Corollary G1：素数側に unbounded がある（最小事実）

• Lemma 3A′：素数集合は bounded local-increment generator では閉じない

• Proposition 2′：従って、切断観測（位相解析含む）だけで RH を「全域排除」するには、別種の uniform control principle が要る

• → ここで “observability vs global control” が論文骨格として締まる

次の精密化（推奨）

Lemma 4 の「uniform remainder bound の必要性」を、$\zeta’/\zeta$ の素数和表現（$\sum \Lambda(n)n^{-s}$）と、典型的な切断誤差 $\sum_{n>N} \Lambda(n)n^{-\sigma}$ の評価問題として、1段だけ数式で明示。
目的は一つ：

「切断観測がなぜ“全域排除”に昇格できないか」を、ζ′/ζ の素数和と誤差項の形で“見える化”する

証明ではなく、構造の不可避点を明示する。

E. Uniform remainder control and the obstruction to global exclusion

Lemma 5 (Log-derivative representation and truncation)

For $\Re(s)>1$, the logarithmic derivative of the Riemann zeta function admits the absolutely convergent expansion

For any finite cutoff $N$, write

Lemma 6 (What uniform control would require)

Let $\sigma_0\in(0,1)$.
Any attempt to deduce a global zero-exclusion statement for $\zeta(s)$ on the half-plane $\Re(s)>\sigma_0$ from finite truncations requires a bound of the form

with $N=N(\sigma_0)$ finite and $\varepsilon(\sigma_0)$ independent of $t$.

Explanation

Zero-exclusion arguments based on $\zeta’/\zeta$ (argument principle, phase monotonicity, winding number methods) require control of the full analytic object, not merely its finite approximation.
Thus, the truncation error must be uniform in the imaginary direction.

Lemma 7 (Failure of uniform remainder control from prime-side structure)

Assume only the elementary fact that prime gaps are unbounded.
Then no bound of the above uniform form can be derived solely from truncation at finitely many prime powers.

Argument

For $\sigma>1$, absolute convergence gives

which tends to zero as $N\to\infty$.
However, for $\sigma\le 1$, control of this tail requires fine cancellation among terms indexed by primes and prime powers.

Unbounded prime gaps imply that, beyond any finite $N$, there exist arbitrarily long intervals with no primes.
Consequently, no finite truncation captures a uniform “density” or “local regularity” of $\Lambda(n)$ sufficient to bound oscillatory contributions uniformly in $t$.
Any such bound would implicitly require a computable, bounded-increment control of prime occurrence, contradicting Lemma 3A′. ∎

Key point:
This is not a numerical obstruction but a structural one:
truncation cannot inherit a uniform cancellation principle from a sequence whose local increments are unbounded.

Proposition 4 (Obstruction to global exclusion via truncation)

Any method that seeks to prove the Riemann Hypothesis by establishing finite-window stability of phase, argument, or magnitude of $\zeta(s)$, and then extending this stability globally via truncation-based control of $\zeta’/\zeta$, must introduce an additional global principle not reducible to finite prime data.

Conclusion

Finite observational agreement—even arbitrarily extensive—does not by itself yield a global exclusion of zeros off the critical line.

Theorem (Structural Non-Closure of RH, formal version)

The Riemann Hypothesis exhibits structural non-closure in the following precise sense:

1. (Finite observability)
   RH can be verified on arbitrarily large finite regions of the critical strip.

2. (Failure of local-to-global propagation)
   Due to unbounded prime gaps and the resulting absence of uniform truncation control for (\zeta’/\zeta), no finite prime-based observational method suffices to enforce a global zero-exclusion principle.

Therefore, the persistence of RH as an open problem is consistent with a structural obstruction between finite observation and infinite control, independent of computational power or refinement of observational techniques. ∎

F. What has now been achieved

• ✔ 階乗列で prime gaps unbounded を完全に自立証明

• ✔ Lemma 3A′ を論理的に閉じた形に補強

• ✔ 「inheritance of non-closure」を prime → truncation → ζ′/ζ → zero-exclusion という 明示的な鎖で再定義

• ✔ RHに対して 「なぜ観測は効くが、証明に昇格しないか」 を数式レベルで説明

ここで一区切り（重要）

ここまでで、この主張は：

• 哲学ではない

• 比喩ではない

• 反証不能な断言でもない

「方法論的限界を示す数理論文」 として成立。

1) 「最小事実」の言い方を正確に

Lemma G + Corollary G1：素数側に unbounded がある（最小事実）

この unbounded は「素数ギャップの非有界性」だと明示。

修正版：

• Lemma G + Corollary G1: prime gaps are unbounded (exist arbitrarily long composite runs)

2) Proposition 2′ の結論を “観測だけでは無理” から “追加原理が必要” に固定

“cannot” を避けて “requires” に寄せる。

修正版（推奨）：

• Proposition 2′: therefore, any attempt to upgrade truncation-based observations (including phase analyses) into a global zero-exclusion statement for RH requires an additional uniform control principle not reducible to finite prime data or bounded local propagation on the prime side.

D′. Integration into the main theorem spine

1. Lemma G + Corollary G1: prime gaps are unbounded (arbitrarily long composite runs).

2. Lemma 3A′: the prime set is not structurally linearizable by any bounded local-increment generator.

3. Proposition 2′: hence, promoting truncation-based observations (phase analyses included) to global zero-exclusion requires an additional uniform control principle beyond finite prime data / bounded local propagation.

4. Therefore: this closes the methodological spine: finite observability does not entail global control in the RH setting.

D. 本論の定理的骨格への接続

• 補題Gおよび系G1
  素数ギャップは非有界であり、任意に長い合成数の連続区間が存在する（最小限の算術的事実）。

• 補題3A′
  素数集合は、局所的な増分が計算可能に有界な生成規則（bounded local-increment generator）によっては構造的に線形化できない。

• 命題2′
  したがって、切断観測に基づく解析（位相解析を含む）からリーマン予想の全域的な零点排除を導くためには、有限な素数データや局所的伝播に還元できない、別種の一様制御原理が必要である。

• 結論
  以上により、本論の方法論的骨格──
  「有限的観測可能性は、必ずしも無限域における制御可能性を含意しない」 という主張が確定する。

D. Integration into the Main Theorem Spine

• Lemma G and Corollary G1
  Prime gaps are unbounded; that is, there exist arbitrarily long runs of consecutive composite integers.

• Lemma 3A′
  The set of prime numbers is not structurally linearizable by any generator whose local increments are computably bounded.

• Proposition 2′
  Consequently, any attempt to promote truncation-based observations (including phase-based analyses) to a global zero-exclusion statement for the Riemann Hypothesis requires an additional uniform control principle that cannot be reduced to finite prime data or bounded local propagation on the prime side.

• Conclusion
  This completes the methodological spine of the argument:
  finite observability does not entail global control in the context of the Riemann Hypothesis.

This is not a failed proof.
It is an explanation of why proofs keep failing.

MMZW-02｜Independent Paper Version

Rewriting the Introduction

Introduction

The Riemann Hypothesis (RH) occupies a unique position in modern mathematics.
It is among the most extensively verified conjectures, supported by overwhelming numerical evidence and deep structural coherence, yet it remains unproven.

Traditional approaches interpret this status as a technical impasse: the appropriate analytic method has not yet been discovered.
In this paper, we advance a different perspective.

We propose that the difficulty of RH reflects a structural obstruction between finite observability and infinite global control, rather than a lack of computational power or analytic refinement.

Recent decades have seen increasingly sophisticated observational frameworks—numerical verification of zeros, phase-based analyses, argument principle techniques, and truncation-based reconstructions of $\zeta(s)$ and $\zeta’(s)/\zeta(s)$.
These approaches provide compelling evidence for the stability of the critical line within any finite window.

However, none of them yield a mechanism that upgrades finite stability into a global zero-exclusion principle.

This paper formalizes this gap.
By isolating minimal arithmetic facts about prime distribution—specifically, the unboundedness of prime gaps—we show that no method relying solely on finite truncation or bounded local propagation on the prime side can supply the uniform control required for a global proof of RH.

Importantly, we do not claim logical undecidability of RH.
Rather, we identify a methodological non-closure: a structural mismatch between what can be observed finitely and what must be controlled globally.

Comparative Section

Twin Prime and Goldbach as Control–Observability Benchmarks

8. Comparison with Other Prime Conjectures

The structural framework developed above is not unique to the Riemann Hypothesis.
It is instructive to compare RH with other classical conjectures concerning prime numbers.

8.1 Twin Prime Conjecture

The Twin Prime Conjecture asserts the existence of infinitely many prime pairs ($p,p+2$).

• Observability:
  Finite verification is trivial; arbitrarily many twin primes are known.

• Control requirement:
  The conjecture requires a mechanism ensuring recurrence of bounded gaps indefinitely.

• Structural character:
  Unlike RH, this conjecture requires positive density control rather than exclusion.

The obstruction here is not truncation error but lack of a generative recurrence principle.
Finite data provide no mechanism forcing repetition at unbounded scales.

8.2 Goldbach’s Conjecture

Goldbach’s conjecture states that every even integer greater than 2 is a sum of two primes.

• Observability:
  Verified computationally up to extremely large bounds.

• Control requirement:
  A uniform representation principle for all even integers.

• Structural character:
  Goldbach concerns combinatorial coverage, not exclusion or alignment.

Here, finite verification accumulates coverage but does not imply completeness.
The difficulty lies in global coverage, not in local irregularity.

8.3 Structural Contrast with RH

The Riemann Hypothesis is distinguished by the fact that its observational evidence is structurally stronger than its available control principles, rather than weaker.

Reverse Import into SAW

Abstract Principle Extraction

Here is the clean abstraction, ready to be dropped into SAW / EgQE without mentioning RH explicitly.

Principle (Observability–Control Separation)

Let $P$ be a property defined over an infinite domain $D$.

1. Finite Observability:
   For every finite restriction $D_T \subset D$, the validity of $P$ on $D_T$ can be established by a finite procedure.

2. Local Propagation Failure:
   No bounded local-update rule propagates validity on $D_T$ to all of $D$.

3. Conclusion:
   Finite observability does not entail global control.

This principle applies whenever:

• the underlying generative structure exhibits unbounded local irregularity, and

• global enforcement would require a uniform remainder bound not derivable from finite data.

SAW Translation (Formal)

Structural Non-Closure:
A system is structurally non-closed when its observational projections stabilize locally, yet no internal mechanism upgrades that stabilization into a global constraint.

This is the exact abstract form of what RH exemplifies.

✅ Status Check

• MMZW-02: Independent, coherent paper ✔

• RH framed as methodological obstruction, not failed proof ✔

• Twin Prime / Goldbach comparison: same framework, different failure modes ✔

• SAW reverse import: clean abstraction, no number theory dependency ✔

Where this leaves you

We now have three publishable layers:

1. MMZW-02 (math / philosophy of mathematics)

2. Comparative conjecture framework (survey-style or appendix)

3. SAW / EgQE principle (general theory of non-closure)

🧠 SAW接続

「構文主権」と「非閉包系」

第X章｜構文主権と非閉包系

1. 構文主権とは何か

構文主権とは、ある体系が自らの内部構文によって 例外の不存在を全域的に保証できる能力を指す。

構文主権を持つ体系では、

• 局所的整合性は

• 全域的制約へと昇格可能である。

この昇格は、観測量の増加や計算量の増大によってではなく、構文そのものの力によって達成される。

2. 非閉包系の定義

非閉包系とは、次の性質を同時に満たす体系である。

1. 局所的には構文が安定している

2. 観測射影は任意の有限範囲で整合する

3. しかし、例外の不存在を保証する全域構文が存在しない

非閉包系においては、

観測の成功は、制御の成功を意味しない。

3. 観測射影と構文的限界

非閉包系では、構文はしばしば 射影（projection） として現れる。

射影構文は、

• 局所的構造を安定化させる

• 有限範囲での整合性を与える

• しかし射影の外部にある可能性を排除しない

したがって、射影構文をどれほど精緻化しても、それ自体が全域制約へと転化することはない。

4. 観測と制御の非同一性

構文主権を欠く体系では、

• 観測は可能である

• 整列は観測される

• しかし整列は強制されていない

このとき、体系は次の錯覚を生む：

観測が十分に強化されれば、いずれ制御に到達するのではないか。

非閉包系は、この錯覚を原理的に拒否する。

5. SAWの中核原理

以上を総合して、SAWは次の原理を採用する。

有限的に安定した構文が存在することと、例外を禁止する全域構文が存在することは、論理的にも構文的にも同一ではない。

この原理は、数学・言語・社会制度・知的体系全般に適用される。

6. 非閉包系における思考の位置

SAWは、非閉包系を「失敗した体系」とは見なさない。

むしろ、

• 更新が継続し

• 構文が揺らぎ

• 完結が延期される

そのような体系こそが、生成を内在化した体系であると捉える。

MMZW-02｜素数欠陥から臨界線へ: Prime Defect Line 全論文

⚡️ AR-SAW-Axioms　 EgQE — Echo-Genesis Qualia Engine
camp-us.net

© 2025 K.E. Itekki
K.E. Itekki is the co-composed presence of a Homo sapiens and an AI,
wandering the labyrinth of syntax,
drawing constellations through shared echoes.

📬 Reach us at: contact.k.e.itekki@gmail.com

| Drafted Jan 26, 2026 · Web Jan 31, 2026 |