Encyclopedia Acoustics Acoustics Harmonic Distortion Rs Domain Cost At Eq
ARTICLE 4 claims 4 theorems
Acoustics Harmonic Distortion Rs Domain Cost At Eq
A machine-checked theorem proves one small fact about a cost function; the acoustics meaning it was built for remains unproved.
The cost at equality
Harmonic distortion in audio measures how much a device adds unwanted frequencies to a signal. The Recognition Science framework models such distortion with a cost function, a number that penalizes the gap between an input and an output. Its declaration domainCost_at_eq proves a single, narrow property: when the input and output are equal, the cost is zero. In symbols, for any nonzero real number r, the cost of r compared with r is exactly 0.
That fact is not special to acoustics. The framework defines the cost as J(m/e), where J is a universal function derived from five axioms about how recognition events must behave. The theorem domainCost_at_eq simply applies a general result, that J(1) = 0, to the ratio m/e when m = e. The proof is short: unfold the definition, cancel the division, and invoke the already-proved fact that J(1) = 0. A companion theorem shows the cost is never negative for positive inputs, and a separate constant, phi minus 1.5, is proved positive.
What the declaration does not claim is where the acoustics enters. The research note in the module suggests a threshold for audible distortion around 1 percent, computed as J(phi) squared, where phi is the golden ratio. That number is a research idea, not a proved result. The Lean code proves nothing about audibility, because the definition of domainCost never mentions sound, ears, or distortion. It is a general cost function wearing an acoustics label.
The honest summary: the machine-checked library proves three general facts about the cost function, and the acoustics interpretation remains an unverified hypothesis. A reader should not take the 1 percent threshold as established science. The framework's own documentation says the paragraph above the theorem is a research note recording where the idea was meant to go, not a result.
THEOREM domainCost_at_eq · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
theorem domainCost_at_eq (r : ℝ) (h : r ≠ 0) : domainCost r r = 0 := by
unfold domainCost; rw [div_self h]; exact Jcost_unit0
THEOREM domainCost_at_eq · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
theorem domainCost_at_eq (r : ℝ) (h : r ≠ 0) : domainCost r r = 0 := by
unfold domainCost; rw [div_self h]; exact Jcost_unit0
THEOREM domainCost_nonneg · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
theorem domainCost_nonneg (m e : ℝ) (hm : 0 < m) (he : 0 < e) : 0 ≤ domainCost m e := by
unfold domainCost; exact Jcost_nonneg (div_pos hm he)
THEOREM domainCost · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
def domainCost (m e : ℝ) : ℝ := Jcost (m / e)
What this page does not claim
The 1 percent audibility threshold is not proved by the machine-checked library. The cost function's zero at equality says nothing about whether equal signals are distortion-free. The theorem does not depend on any acoustics-specific axiom or definition.
Verify this page
Every tagged claim above names its theorem. To check one yourself rather than trust this page, elaborate the source module with Lean 4 and audit its axiom basis:
$ lake env lean IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
expected axiom basis: [propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound] (the Lean kernel's standard three; no RS-specific axioms)
A page whose claims cannot be reproduced this way does not ship. In production, every anchor links to the exact declaration in the public source release, and this block carries the build receipt for the page itself.
Derived articles
This page is generated by a question-recursion engine: the questions its answers raise become the next pages. The current agenda, with open targets marked red:
- What definition of m and e in acoustics terms would turn the general cost theorem into a statement about distortion?
- What measured evidence supports the proposed 1 percent audibility threshold?
- How does the golden ratio enter the framework's derivation of the cost function?
MACHINE LAYER · GROUNDED CLAIM TABLE · CLICK TO EXPAND
THEOREM domainCost_at_eq · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
theorem domainCost_at_eq (r : ℝ) (h : r ≠ 0) : domainCost r r = 0 := by unfold domainCost; rw [div_self h]; exact Jcost_unit0its declaration domainCost_at_eq proves a single, narrow property: when the input and output are equal, the cost is zero. domainCost_at_eq · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.leanTHEOREM domainCost_at_eq · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
theorem domainCost_at_eq (r : ℝ) (h : r ≠ 0) : domainCost r r = 0 := by unfold domainCost; rw [div_self h]; exact Jcost_unit0The proof is short: unfold the definition, cancel the division, and invoke the already-proved fact that J(1) = 0. domainCost_at_eq · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.leanTHEOREM domainCost_nonneg · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
theorem domainCost_nonneg (m e : ℝ) (hm : 0 < m) (he : 0 < e) : 0 ≤ domainCost m e := by unfold domainCost; exact Jcost_nonneg (div_pos hm he)A companion theorem shows the cost is never negative for positive inputs domainCost_nonneg · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.leanTHEOREM domainCost · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean
def domainCost (m e : ℝ) : ℝ := Jcost (m / e)The Lean code proves nothing about audibility, because the definition of domainCost never mentions sound, ears, or distortion. domainCost · IndisputableMonolith/Acoustics/Harmonic_Distortion_RS.lean