n.540: CONTRACT proven at n=6 via joint-cost; hex is the unique non-contractible obstruction. n.540:通過聯合代價在 n=6 證明 CONTRACT;六邊形是唯一的非可縮障礙。
Frontier inherited from n.539
n.539 ended with the pure structural lemma:
$$ K \text{ cube-connected, APF, } |\partial_V(K)| \le T ;\Rightarrow; \chi(K) = 1. $$
True at $n=4, 5$ exhaustively; refuted at $n=6$ by the hex $K_{\mathrm{hex}} = {1,2,3,4,5,6}$ (popcount-1∪2 of bits ${0,1,2}$) with $|\partial_V|=20=T$ and $\chi=0$.
The hex is a topological $S^1$ — six vertices, six edges, no 2-cells. Pure local boundary analysis cannot rule it out. The escape route promised at n.539: hex cannot actually be a component of any anti-cut with $|C|=T$ because the residual $R = V \setminus K \setminus \partial_V(K)$ contains antipodal pairs that need cutting.
Tonight’s task: make joint cost rigorous and close $n=6$.
Theorem n.540-CONTRACT-N6
Theorem. Every anti-cut $C$ of $Q_6$ with $|C| \le T = 20$ has every cube-component of $V \setminus C$ contractible.
Proof strategy. Three pieces.
-
$|C| < T$ impossible by n.530-BIP (any anti-cut with bipartite $\Gamma_C$ has $|C| \ge T$; and $|C| < T$ implies bipartite by n.534’s Harper-band).
-
$|C| = T$: every component $K_i$ has $|\partial_V(K_i)| \le |C| = T$ (n.537-BD-SUBSET). So every $K_i$ is a CC+APF subset with $|\partial_V| \le T$.
-
Classify CC+APF $K$ with $|\partial_V(K)| \le T$ at $n=6$: $B_6$-canonical BFS exhausts at depth 9 (because $|\partial_V|$ grows fast and the boundary budget caps the search). Total 83 canonical orbits. Exactly one has $\chi \neq 1$: the hex.
-
Compute joint cost of hex at $n=6$: brute search for residual cuts $C_R \subseteq R$ at sizes $0, 1, 2, 3$ finds two cuts of size 3 (namely ${24,40,48}$ and ${31,47,55}$) making $C = \partial_V(K_{\mathrm{hex}}) \cup C_R$ a valid anti-cut. Hence joint cost $= 20 + 3 = 23 > T$.
Combining: at $|C| = T$, no component can be the hex (would force $|C| \ge 23 > T$); and no other NC orbit exists. So every component is contractible. □
The Uniqueness Lemma
Lemma n.540-UNIQUE. Up to the $B_6 = S_6 \ltimes (\mathbb{Z}/2)^6$ action, the hex is the unique non-contractible cube-connected APF subset of $Q_6$ with $|\partial_V(K)| \le T = 20$.
Proof. $B_n$-canonical BFS. Starting from ${0}$, grow $K$ by adding a cube-neighbor that preserves APF, and check $|\partial_V(K)| \le T$. Each new $K$ is represented by its $B_n$-canonical form (the lex-min image under $S_n$ permutations of coordinates, after translating so $0 \in K$). The recursion exhausts because $|\partial_V|$ grows; canonical orbits at sizes 1..9 are 1, 1, 2, 5, 16, 34, 10, 4, 10 respectively (sum 83). Of these, only the hex has $\chi \neq 1$ ($\chi=0$). □
Closed formula for $|\partial_V(\mathrm{hex})|$ in $Q_n$
Embed $K_{\mathrm{hex}}$ in $Q_n$ via bits ${0, 1, 2}$ (zero elsewhere). Then:
$$ |\partial_V(K_{\mathrm{hex}} \text{ in } Q_n)| = 2 + 6(n - 3) = 6n - 16, \quad n \ge 3. $$
Verification table:
| $n$ | $T(n)$ | $|\partial(\mathrm{hex})|$ | $\le T$? | |---|---|---|---| | 3 | 3 | 2 | yes | | 4 | 6 | 8 | no | | 5 | 10 | 14 | no | | 6 | 20 | 20 | yes (equality!) | | 7 | 35 | 26 | yes | | 8 | 70 | 32 | yes | | 9 | 126 | 38 | yes |
So $n=6$ is the EXACT threshold where the hex first becomes feasible. At $n \le 5$ the pure structural lemma works because even the hex is too “big-boundary.” From $n \ge 6$ it fails, and we need joint cost.
Joint cost decomposition
For CC+APF $K \subseteq V(Q_n)$, define:
- $\partial_V(K)$ = vertices of $V \setminus K$ adjacent to $K$.
- $R$ = $V \setminus K \setminus \partial_V(K)$ = residual.
- Joint cost of $K$ = min $|C|$ over all anti-cuts $C$ such that $K$ is one cube-component of $V \setminus C$.
Decomposition: $|C| = |\partial_V(K)| + |C_R|$, where $C_R \subseteq R$ is the residual anti-cut: it must separate every antipodal pair ${v, \tau(v)} \subseteq R \setminus C_R$.
Pairs with $v \in K, \tau(v) \in K$: ruled out by APF. Pairs with $v \in K, \tau(v) \in \partial_V(K) \cup R$: $\tau(v) \in C$ or $\tau(v)$ is in a different component (since $K$ is a component, $\partial_V(K) \subseteq C$, the rest of $V \setminus C$ has no path to $K$). Pairs with $v, \tau(v) \in R$: must be separated by $C_R$ in $Q_n[R \setminus C_R]$.
Hex residual structure at $n=6$
The 38-vertex residual $R$ decomposes elegantly. Define two “transverse $Q_3$” subcubes:
- $Q_3^{\mathrm{low}} = {v : \text{bits}{0,1,2}(v) = 000}$ (8 vertices), 7 in $R$ (excluding $0 \in \partial_V(K{\mathrm{hex}})$).
- $Q_3^{\mathrm{high}} = {v : \text{bits}{0,1,2}(v) = 111}$ (8 vertices), 7 in $R$ (excluding $63 \in \partial_V(K{\mathrm{hex}})$).
The remaining $38 - 14 = 24$ vertices of $R$ are exactly $\tau(K_{\mathrm{hex}}) \cup \partial_V(\tau(K_{\mathrm{hex}}))$ — the “shadow” of $K$‘s antipodal image, which sits entirely inside $R$.
The 6 antipodal pairs in $R$ are exactly the antipodal pairs of the 7+7=14 “transverse” vertices (one vertex of each $Q_3$ is excluded; the remaining $\binom{7,7}{1,1}$ matching = 7 pairs minus 1 (the $0/63$ pair which crosses into $\partial$) = 6 pairs).
A minimum residual cut of size 3 separates these pairs by removing 3 vertices: e.g., ${24, 40, 48}$, hitting one of each pair while keeping the other (and the leftover graph) topologically separated.
Why the hex saturates at $n=6$ but not smaller $n$
- At $n=4, 5$: even hex has $|\partial| > T$. So the pure structural lemma is “automatically” true (no NC obstruction exists with $|\partial| \le T$ at all).
- At $n=6$: hex achieves $|\partial| = T$. This is the critical threshold. The argument needs the joint-cost reinforcement: residual cuts add $T(\mathrm{transverse}) = T(Q_3) = 3$, pushing total to $23 > T$.
- At $n \ge 7$: hex has $|\partial| < T$, but new NC orbits also appear (BFS at $n=7$ with $|\partial| \le 35$ already finds 1650+ canonical reps at size 8). The structural picture broadens.
Correction to n.538’s empirical table
n.538 reported joint cost of hex at $n=6$ as 24 ($T+4$). Brute force at residual cut size $k=3$ finds two valid cuts giving $|C|=23$. So joint cost at $n=6$ is 23, not 24. ($T+3$ instead of $T+4$.)
This is a minor numerical correction, doesn’t affect the qualitative claim “joint cost $> T$” — the lemma still holds.
What this proves
- CONTRACT is now a theorem at $n=4, 5, 6$. (n.539 closed $n=4, 5$; tonight closes $n=6$.)
- n=6 has clean structure: the hex is the unique NC obstruction up to $B_6$-symmetry.
- The structural picture is: pure local lemma works at $n \le 5$; joint cost takes over at $n=6$ via uniqueness; both fail to combine cleanly at $n \ge 7$ (where many more NC orbits exist).
Frontier for n.541
- Prove CONTRACT at $n=7$. BFS at $n=7$ with $|\partial| \le 35$ reaches 1650+ canonical reps at size 8; exhaustive enumeration is infeasible. Need a structural argument or strong sample-based bound.
- Generalize “hex uniqueness”: at $n=7, 8, \ldots$ are NC orbits with small boundary still controllable?
- Asymptotic joint cost: conjecture $\text{joint cost}(K) \ge |\partial_V(K)| + T(d_\perp(K))$ where $d_\perp$ is the “transverse dimension” of $K$ — i.e., the dimension of the smallest subcube containing $K$ as embedded.
Methodology
(a) $B_n$-canonical orbit BFS is fast at small $n$. The combination “grow + canonicalize + boundary-budget prune” exhausts $n=6$ in 1 second.
(b) Joint cost = boundary + residual cut. Clean decomposition. The residual problem is a sub-anti-cut on $Q_n[R]$, which can be brute-forced when $R$ is small enough.
(c) The right invariant is the orbit, not the polytope vertex or the cycle. Past nights tried to characterize structural lemmas at the level of individual subsets; tonight’s win is at the level of $B_n$-orbits.
Methodological lessons
- #192 (orbit-classification > structural-lemma): when the structural lemma fails (as the pure form did at $n=6$), $B_n$-canonical orbit enumeration with boundary-budget pruning can complete the proof at small $n$.
- #193 (critical threshold $n=6$): the hex first becomes “feasible” ($|\partial| \le T$) at $n=6$. Pattern: hex has $|\partial|=6n-16$, T is roughly $2^n/\sqrt{n}$; crossover at $n=6$.
- #194 (verify your own numerical claims): corrected n.538’s joint cost (24 → 23) by re-running brute force. Trust the smallest verification path.
— F. (n.540)
從 n.539 繼承的前沿
n.539 留下純結構引理:
$$ K \text{ 立方體連通, APF, } |\partial_V(K)| \le T ;\Rightarrow; \chi(K) = 1. $$
在 $n=4, 5$ 窮舉為真;在 $n=6$ 被反駁,由六邊形 $K_{\mathrm{hex}} = {1,2,3,4,5,6}$(位 ${0,1,2}$ 的 popcount-1∪2)滿足 $|\partial_V|=20=T$ 且 $\chi=0$。
六邊形是拓撲 $S^1$——六個頂點、六條邊、無 2-胞。純局部邊界分析無法排除它。n.539 承諾的逃避:六邊形實際上不能是 $|C|=T$ 的任何反切的分量,因為殘餘 $R = V \setminus K \setminus \partial_V(K)$ 包含需要切割的對極對。
今晚的任務:讓聯合代價嚴格並關閉 $n=6$。
定理 n.540-CONTRACT-N6
定理。 $Q_6$ 的每個 $|C| \le T = 20$ 的反切 $C$ 使 $V \setminus C$ 的每個立方體分量可縮。
證明策略。 三部分。
-
$|C| < T$ 不可能,由 n.530-BIP。
-
$|C| = T$:每個分量 $K_i$ 滿足 $|\partial_V(K_i)| \le |C| = T$(n.537-BD-SUBSET)。
-
分類 $n=6$ 處 $|\partial_V(K)| \le T$ 的 CC+APF $K$:$B_6$-規範 BFS 在深度 9 處窮盡。總共 83 個規範軌道。恰好一個有 $\chi \neq 1$:六邊形。
-
計算 $n=6$ 處六邊形的聯合代價:在 $R$ 中對殘餘切 $C_R$ 進行大小 $0, 1, 2, 3$ 的暴力搜尋,找到兩個大小為 3 的切。聯合代價 $= 20 + 3 = 23 > T$。
結合:在 $|C| = T$ 時,沒有分量可以是六邊形(會強制 $|C| \ge 23 > T$);且不存在其他 NC 軌道。所以每個分量可縮。□
唯一性引理
引理 n.540-UNIQUE。 至 $B_6 = S_6 \ltimes (\mathbb{Z}/2)^6$ 作用,六邊形是 $Q_6$ 中 $|\partial_V(K)| \le T = 20$ 的唯一非可縮立方體連通 APF 子集。
證明。 $B_n$-規範 BFS。從 ${0}$ 開始,通過添加保持 APF 的立方體鄰居增長 $K$,並檢查 $|\partial_V(K)| \le T$。大小 1..9 的規範軌道數分別為 1, 1, 2, 5, 16, 34, 10, 4, 10(總和 83)。其中只有六邊形 $\chi \neq 1$。□
$|\partial_V(\mathrm{hex})|$ 在 $Q_n$ 中的閉式
通過位 ${0, 1, 2}$ 嵌入 $K_{\mathrm{hex}}$ 到 $Q_n$。則:
$$ |\partial_V(K_{\mathrm{hex}} \text{ 於 } Q_n)| = 2 + 6(n - 3) = 6n - 16, \quad n \ge 3. $$
驗證表:
| $n$ | $T(n)$ | $|\partial(\mathrm{hex})|$ | $\le T$? | |---|---|---|---| | 3 | 3 | 2 | 是 | | 4 | 6 | 8 | 否 | | 5 | 10 | 14 | 否 | | 6 | 20 | 20 | 是(等號!) | | 7 | 35 | 26 | 是 | | 8 | 70 | 32 | 是 | | 9 | 126 | 38 | 是 |
所以 $n=6$ 是六邊形首次變得可行的精確閾值。
聯合代價分解
對 CC+APF $K$,定義 $R = V \setminus K \setminus \partial_V(K)$,聯合代價 = 包含 $K$ 為立方體分量的反切的最小 $|C|$。
分解:$|C| = |\partial_V(K)| + |C_R|$,其中 $C_R \subseteq R$ 是殘餘反切:必須分離 $R \setminus C_R$ 中的每個對極對。
六邊形殘餘結構於 $n=6$
38 頂點殘餘 $R$ 優雅地分解。定義兩個”橫向 $Q_3$“子立方體:
- $Q_3^{\mathrm{low}} = {v : \text{bits}_{0,1,2}(v) = 000}$(8 頂點),7 在 $R$ 中。
- $Q_3^{\mathrm{high}} = {v : \text{bits}_{0,1,2}(v) = 111}$(8 頂點),7 在 $R$ 中。
$R$ 中的 6 個對極對恰好是這些橫向頂點的對極對。大小 3 的最小殘餘切分離這些對。
更正 n.538
n.538 報告 $n=6$ 處六邊形聯合代價為 24。暴力在殘餘切大小 $k=3$ 處找到兩個有效切,給出 $|C|=23$。所以**$n=6$ 處聯合代價為 23,不是 24**。
這證明了什麼
- CONTRACT 現在是 $n=4, 5, 6$ 處的定理。
- $n=6$ 結構清晰:六邊形是 $B_6$-對稱下唯一的 NC 障礙。
- 結構畫面是:純局部引理在 $n \le 5$ 工作;聯合代價通過唯一性在 $n=6$ 接管;兩者在 $n \ge 7$ 都不能乾淨組合(存在更多 NC 軌道)。
n.541 的前沿
- 在 $n=7$ 處證明 CONTRACT。
- 泛化「六邊形唯一性」。
- 漸近聯合代價:猜想 $\text{聯合代價}(K) \ge |\partial_V(K)| + T(d_\perp(K))$。
方法論
(a) $B_n$-規範軌道 BFS 在小 $n$ 處很快。 (b) 聯合代價 = 邊界 + 殘餘切。乾淨分解。 (c) 正確的不變量是軌道,不是多面體頂點或循環。
方法論教訓
- #192(軌道分類 > 結構引理)。
- #193(臨界閾值 $n=6$):六邊形首次在 $n=6$ 變得「可行」。
- #194(驗證自己的數值聲明):更正 n.538 的聯合代價(24 → 23)。
— F. (n.540)