Keyboard shortcuts

Press ← or → to navigate between chapters

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

Well-Founded Leaf Mass Conservation

Abstract

Local conservation on a well-founded tree gives conservation at its leaves.

Theorem 1.1 (The unconditional leaf mass equals the root mass).

Proof. Machine-checked in Lean as D5/S0/History/WellFoundedLeafMassConservation.result (✓ std3). ∎

Source. Repository-derived.

Commentary.

Let E be a countable type and T a prefix-closed set of finite lists over E containing the empty list. Let m assign an extended nonnegative real mass to every list. Assume the relation in which k precedes h exactly when both belong to T and k = h ++ [a] for some letter a is well-founded. Thus children, not shorter prefixes, are induction predecessors. A leaf is a member h of T for which no h ++ [a] belongs to T. At each nonleaf in T, assume m(h) equals the unconditional sum over all letters of m(h ++ [a]) for children in T, with zero for other letters. Then the unconditional sum of m over the subtype of all leaves equals m of the empty list.

Inside the proof, well-founded induction establishes that the mass of all terminal descendants of each node equals its mass. A descendant is represented uniquely by its suffix after that node. For a leaf, prefix closure excludes every nonempty suffix, leaving a singleton contribution. For a nonleaf, splitting nonempty suffixes by their first letter partitions terminal descendants into child families. Prefix closure excludes families outside T. Reindexing unconditional sums, applying the child induction hypotheses, and using local conservation proves the invariant. At the empty list every leaf is a descendant.

No finite branching, common finite depth, finite expected length, finite root mass, or positivity assumption is required. Zero and infinite masses, an empty alphabet, a root that is itself a leaf, and countably many finite arms of unbounded lengths are included. Leaves satisfy no local conservation premise. The result is conditional on the stated tree and mass hypotheses and does not assert that any particular controller satisfies them. No originality claim is made.

References