Math Mapgenerated 2026-10-25 · a354234
PUBLIC BUILD

Existence — flashcards

Everything on this map that touches Existence: its own shape, its concepts, the statements resting on them, and the lens edges crossing into it.

36 cards. Click a question to reveal the answer — this uses no scripting, so the deck works with JavaScript disabled and prints as a plain question-and-answer list.

This deck is generated. No card was written for the deck: each one is derived from a node in the registry by a stated rule, and names its source underneath the answer. Correct the statement and the card follows.

Download as CSV — columns Category, Front, Back, Source, for Anki or any spaced-repetition tool.

Theorems 10

State: Mordell–Weil theorem.

The rational points of an elliptic curve over a number field form a finitely generated abelian group — so infinitely many points are always generated by finitely many.

derived from st/mordell-weil by the statement rule

State: Franklin's involution.

A sign-reversing pairing on partitions that cancels almost every term, leaving the pentagonal number theorem's sparse recurrence. The general principle: a recurrence needing little memory is not an easier problem, it is a harder theorem — the near-total cancellation has to be proved.

derived from st/franklin-involution by the statement rule

State: Tucker's lemma.

In an antipodally-labelled triangulation of the n-ball, with labels ±1,…,±n and antipodal boundary vertices carrying opposite-signed labels, some edge joins two vertices with the same value and opposite sign. The combinatorial, Sperner-style statement equivalent to Borsuk–Ulam.

derived from st/tucker by the statement rule

State: The stolen necklace theorem.

A necklace with k types of jewels, each present in an even number of beads, can be fairly split between two thieves using at most k cuts — and k is tight: arranged as k contiguous blocks, one per type, every block needs an internal cut, so 'at most k' cannot be improved in general.

derived from st/necklace-splitting by the statement rule

State: Necklace-splitting is PPA-complete.

Finding a fair two-thief split of a necklace is PPA-complete already at the simplest case — two thieves, the friendliest group action a proof by Borsuk–Ulam could ask for. Filos-Ratsikas & Goldberg, 2018 (arXiv:1805.12559). This refutes the hypothesis that k-thief difficulty tracks the availability of free ℤ/k actions on spheres: hardness is present at the friendliest case there is, so it is an artefact of the topological proof route rather than an obstruction inherent to the problem.

derived from st/necklace-ppa by the statement rule

State: Any non-negative-deficit construction achieves exact fairness at the midpoint; its one-sided bound does not reverse.

Two results, and the 2026-09 mining pass corrected the statement of both. (1) THE ONE-SIDED LEMMA. The bound is A_c(t) <= ceil(t*rho_c): no color ever runs more than one bead ahead of its proportional share. It is ONE-SIDED, and the natural two-sided version — a matching lower bound A_c(t) >= floor(t*rho_c) — is FALSE, with an explicit counterexample at x >= 4 reaching a deficit of 23/22. Earlier filings named the lemma 'one-sided' without stating the inequality or recording that the symmetric version fails, which left the asymmetry looking like a proof artifact rather than a fact about the construction. (2) THE MIDPOINT-EXACTNESS THEOREM. At the checkpoint t = y/2 the split is exactly fair. (3) 'GREEDY' NAMES AN INVARIANT CLASS, NOT AN ALGORITHM. The result does not depend on the argmax tie-break — it holds for ANY rule that only ever serves a color with non-negative deficit. The argmax largest-remainder rule is one member of that class and was previously filed as if it were the hypothesis; the tie-break question was explicitly asked in lemma-harvest-prompt.md section 3, the answer came back as the broader class, and this entry did not move until the 2026-09 mining pass. Corrected 2026-08 (retained): an earlier version wrongly conditioned this on a discrepancy statistic D <= 4/3. That statistic was never computed for greedy-built arrangements at all — only for independent random ones, in a separate, unrelated, single-batch numerical experiment (400 trials, three colors, twelve beads, not reproduced or tested at other sizes) with no completed proof behind it. The two results were conflated in translation from a summary and are unrelated.

derived from st/greedy-midpoint by the statement rule

State: c(w)=1 bounds discrepancy, tightly, but not the other way round.

For 3-color, 12-bead balanced necklace arrangements (4 beads of each color), exhaustive enumeration of all 34,650 distinct arrangements shows c(w)=1 ⟹ D ≤ 4/3, with no exceptions, and the bound is tight — 4/3 is achieved. The converse, once believed and stated on this map, is false: D ≤ 4/3 does not imply c(w)=1. 10,584 of the 34,650 arrangements (about 30%) have D ≤ 4/3 yet require two or three cuts, and fixing D at exactly 1 does not even determine c(w) — it splits close to evenly between one cut and two. D is necessary but far from sufficient.

derived from st/necklace-discrepancy-boundary by the statement rule

State: The Selmer group is computable.

In 0 → E(ℚ)/2E(ℚ) → Sel₂(E) → Ш(E)[2] → 0 the middle term is assembled from local conditions at each place and so is mechanically computable; Ш is precisely the local–global failure that remains.

derived from st/selmer-descent by the statement rule

State: Chabauty's method.

When the Mordell–Weil rank is less than the genus, p-adic integration bounds the number of rational points on a curve. Analysis over ℚ_p answering a question ℝ cannot touch.

derived from st/chabauty by the statement rule

State: Dhar's abelian sandpile group is isomorphic to spanning trees via the Matrix-Tree theorem, and self-organized criticality lands on an independently-located transition.

The Bak–Tang–Wiesenfeld sandpile model (1987), run on an L=60 lattice with threshold 4 over 40,000 grain drops, produces avalanches spanning four orders of magnitude (sizes 1 to 11,194) with no external tuning. Dhar's abelian sandpile group (D. Dhar, 1990) identifies recurrent sandpile configurations with spanning trees of the underlying graph via the Matrix-Tree theorem — verified directly on a 2×2 grid, where brute-force enumeration gives 192 recurrent configurations, exactly matching the determinant of the reduced graph Laplacian (192) computed independently via linear algebra. Separately, a fixed-energy (undriven, periodic-boundary) variant locates a genuine absorbing-to-active phase transition at ζ_c≈2.1–2.2, and the driven sandpile's self-organized density (ζ≈2.10) lands on that independently-located transition point.

derived from st/dhar-sandpile-group-spanning-trees by the statement rule

Open and counterexample 2

State the conjecture: The Collatz conjecture.

Iterating n ↦ n/2 for even n and 3n+1 for odd n reaches 1 from every positive integer. Open.

derived from st/collatz by the statement rule

What does Selmer's cubic show, and why does it matter?

3x³ + 4y³ + 5z³ = 0 is solvable over ℝ and over every ℚₚ, and has no nontrivial rational solution. Found in 1951; it is why the local–global principle is a phenomenon rather than a theorem.

derived from st/selmer-cubic by the statement rule

Names and dates 9

The Collatz conjecture — who, and when?

Lothar Collatz, 1937.

derived from st/collatz by the attribution rule

Selmer's cubic — who, and when?

Ernst Selmer, 1951.

derived from st/selmer-cubic by the attribution rule

Mordell–Weil theorem — who, and when?

Louis Mordell, then André Weil, 1922 (Mordell), 1929 (Weil).

derived from st/mordell-weil by the attribution rule

Franklin's involution — who, and when?

Fabian Franklin, 1881.

derived from st/franklin-involution by the attribution rule

Tucker's lemma — who, and when?

Albert W. Tucker, 1946.

derived from st/tucker by the attribution rule

The stolen necklace theorem — who, and when?

Charles Goldberg and Douglas West, 1985.

derived from st/necklace-splitting by the attribution rule

Necklace-splitting is PPA-complete — who, and when?

Aris Filos-Ratsikas and Paul Goldberg, 2018.

derived from st/necklace-ppa by the attribution rule

The Selmer group is computable — who, and when?

Ernst Selmer, 1951.

derived from st/selmer-descent by the attribution rule

Chabauty's method — who, and when?

Claude Chabauty, then Robert Coleman, 1941 (Chabauty), 1985 (Coleman).

derived from st/chabauty by the attribution rule

Connections 11

Under the Information cost lens, how do Orbits & itineraries and Collatz conjecture relate? [Information cost]

A full orbit determines its seed; orbit statistics do not. Reversing the map is the question of how much of the seed survives being averaged.

derived from information-cost:dynamical-systems→collatz by the connection rule

Under the Degeneracy lens, how do Topological spaces and Graph theory & combinatorial proof relate? [Degeneracy]

The stolen-necklace argument solves the continuous division problem first — cuts anywhere on a real interval — and recovers the discrete, integer-bead necklace by sliding each cut to the nearest bead boundary. The discrete problem is an un-arbitrary restriction of the continuous one, arrived at from outside the transcript this schema was originally admitted from.

derived from degeneracy:topology→graph-theory by the connection rule

Under the Degeneracy lens, how do Non-Euclidean geometry and Coordinate geometry relate? [Degeneracy]

Euclidean geometry is the curvature-zero member of a family. It looks canonical because it is flat, and flat is a constraint rather than an absence of one.

derived from degeneracy:noneuclidean→coordinate-geometry by the connection rule

Under the Degeneracy lens, how do Erlangen program and Non-Euclidean geometry relate? [Degeneracy]

A geometry is the invariants of a group acting on a space, so choosing Euclidean geometry is choosing one group out of many. Klein's move is this schema applied to geometry wholesale.

derived from degeneracy:erlangen→noneuclidean by the connection rule

What is the correspondence between Graph theory & combinatorial proof and Topological spaces? [Correspondences]

A discrete, antipodally-labelled triangulation of the ball (Tucker, 1946) is the combinatorial equivalent of a continuous antipodal map on the sphere (Borsuk–Ulam, 1933) — the same relation Sperner's lemma has to Brouwer's fixed point theorem. The via is the whole edge: encode a necklace cut as a point on Sⁿ so that the antipodal map exactly swaps the two thieves, and the topological theorem hands back a fair division for free.

derived from correspondences:graph-theory→topology by the connection rule

Coordinate geometry and Non-Euclidean geometry look like one thing. What separates them? [Forks]

The origin of the schema. Accept the fifth postulate or deny it; both worlds are consistent, and neither is the true one. This became the tool you reached for four more times, each at a higher level.

derived from forks:coordinate-geometry→noneuclidean by the connection rule

Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Non-Euclidean geometry look like one thing. What separates them? [Forks]

Your objection, and it was right: axiomatic independence is not Gödelian self-reference. One is a choice the axioms leave open; the other is a statement the system cannot settle about itself.

derived from forks:godel-incompleteness→noneuclidean by the connection rule

Between Collatz conjecture and Baker's theorem, which way does the reasoning actually run? [Direction]

Forwards, the fate of a Collatz orbit is undecidable in practice. Backwards, the orbit hones in on its seed — and the question of how fast becomes a question about linear forms in logarithms, which is where Baker's theorem lives.

derived from direction:collatz→baker-theorem by the connection rule

What breaks on the way from Collatz conjecture to Decidability? [What breaks]

Not a theorem — an instance of the same shape. The interest of Collatz here is structural: a rule this simple should not be able to hide its own outcome, and it does.

derived from what-breaks:collatz→prop/decidability by the connection rule

Under the Correspondence test lens, how do Bernoulli numbers & power sums and Graph theory & combinatorial proof relate? [Correspondence test]

Partial. No direct interpretation the way binomial coefficients count something outright, but one step removed — through the Genocchi and zigzag numbers, both of which do have direct combinatorial meanings. A correspondence that holds once you're willing to go via an intermediate object.

Recorded as conjectural: expected, not proved.

derived from correspondence-test:bernoulli-numbers→graph-theory by the connection rule

Under the Correspondence test lens, how do Graph theory & combinatorial proof and Zeta function & prime distribution relate? [Correspondence test]

REFUTED at the level asked. Checked against Maynard's actual definition of an admissible tuple, and the objects are not the same. A real connection was found one level up instead — at the level of technique (moment methods), not of the objects themselves. The surface-level naming match was the wrong place to look.

Recorded as refuted: this edge was drawn and then withdrawn.

derived from correspondence-test:graph-theory→zeta-primes by the connection rule

Concepts 4

What is Elliptic curves, in one sentence?

Smooth genus-one curves with a marked point, whose points form a group. Filed under geometry because it is a curve, studied almost entirely for its arithmetic — the clearest single case of this map's eight-way split failing to hold an object.

derived from elliptic-curves by the concept rule

What is Graph theory & combinatorial proof, in one sentence?

Counting and structure on discrete objects; proof techniques native to finite mathematics.

derived from graph-theory by the concept rule

What is Non-Euclidean geometry, in one sentence?

Deny the parallel postulate and the resulting geometry is consistent. The first widely accepted demonstration that an axiom could be genuinely optional.

derived from noneuclidean by the concept rule

What is Collatz conjecture, in one sentence?

Halve if even, 3n+1 if odd. Whether every start returns to 1 is open. Its interest here is structural: the fate of an orbit cannot be determined in advance.

derived from collatz by the concept rule