Skip to content
Shadow Theory

Appendix A 9 October 2026

A complementary finite regular-basin theorem

Reading position 10 of 14

A A complementary finite regular-basin theorem

This appendix concerns a different, random-return preparation mechanism. It is not used to manufacture independent archive populations for the deterministic Gaussian protocol. Its purpose is to distinguish uniform preparation of a regularity class from retained-tape independence, and to record the supporting finite-dimensional argument.

Let γ\gamma be the standard Gaussian measure on Rd\mathbb R^d. Let PP be a self-adjoint Markov contraction on L2(γ)L^2(\gamma), preserving constants, positive semidefinite as an operator, and with no nonconstant fixed function. The spectral positivity excludes a period-two obstruction. Since PP preserves nonnegative functions and P1=1P1=1, self-adjointness gives ∫Ph dγ=∫h dγ\int Ph\,d\gamma=\int h\,d\gamma and

∥Ph∥1≤∫P∣h∣ dγ=∥h∥1(h∈L2(γ)). \|Ph\|_1\leq\int P|h|\,d\gamma=\|h\|_1 \qquad(h\in L^2(\gamma)).

Thus PP extends uniquely by density to a positivity- and mass-preserving contraction on L1(γ)L^1(\gamma). All expressions PkfP^k f below use this extension; the admitted density ff need not lie in L2L^2. A lazy inverse-balanced mixture of actual reference-preserving returns is one possible supplier; its physical implementation and command independence are separate hypotheses. Denote normalized product Hermite polynomials by HαH_\alpha, and set

Em=span⁡{Hα:∣α∣≤m},Sm=∑∣α∣≤mHα2,Cm2=∫Sm2 dγ. E_m=\operatorname{span}\{H_\alpha:|\alpha|\le m\},\quad S_m=\sum_{|\alpha|\le m}H_\alpha^2,\quad C_m^2=\int S_m^2\,d\gamma.

For Eℓ0=Eℓ∩1⊥E_\ell^0=E_\ell\cap1^\perp, define κℓ(k)=∥Pk∣Eℓ0∥L2→L2\kappa_\ell(k)=\lVert P^k|_{E_\ell^0}\rVert_{L^2\to L^2}, taking it to be zero if the domain is zero dimensional. The range need not be Eℓ0E_\ell^0.

Theorem A.1 (Finite preparation on a weak Fisher basin)

If f≥0f\ge0, ∫f dγ=1\int f\,d\gamma=1, f∈H1(γ)\sqrt f\in H^1(\gamma), and 4∫∣∇f∣2 dγ≤J4\int|\nabla\sqrt f|^2\,d\gamma\le J, then, for δm=J/[4(m+1)]<1\delta_m=\sqrt{J/[4(m+1)]}<1,

TV⁡((Pkf)γ,γ)≤δm+12Cm2−1 κ2m(k). \TV\bigl((P^k f)\gamma,\gamma\bigr) \le\delta_m+\frac12\sqrt{C_m^2-1}\,\kappa_{2m}(k).

For every J<∞J<\infty and ϵ>0\epsilon>0 there is a finite common kk for the entire stated class. No spectral gap or practical waiting-time bound is asserted.

Proof

Put g=fg=\sqrt f, h=Πmgh=\Pi_mg, and c=∥h∥22c=\lVert h\rVert_2^2. Gaussian integration by parts gives

⟨∂ig,Hβ⟩=βi+1 ⟨g,Hβ+ei⟩. \langle\partial_i g,H_\beta\rangle =\sqrt{\beta_i+1}\,\langle g,H_{\beta+e_i}\rangle.

The identity extends from smooth functions to H1(γ)H^1(\gamma) by Sobolev approximation. Bessel's inequality, summed over ii, gives ∑α∣α∣∣⟨g,Hα⟩∣2≤∫∣∇g∣2 dγ≤J/4\sum_\alpha|\alpha||\langle g,H_\alpha\rangle|^2 \leq\int|\nabla g|^2\,d\gamma\leq J/4. Hence 1−c=∥g−h∥22≤δm2<11-c=\lVert g-h\rVert_2^2\le\delta_m^2<1. The polynomial a=h2/ca=h^2/c is a normalized positive density. Since g≥0g\ge0,

∫g∣h∣/c dγ≥⟨g,h⟩/c=c. \int g|h|/\sqrt c\,d\gamma\ge\langle g,h\rangle/\sqrt c=\sqrt c.

For normalized nonnegative r,sr,s, Cauchy–Schwarz applied to (r−s)(r+s)(r-s)(r+s) gives 12∫∣r2−s2∣≤1−⟨r,s⟩2\frac12\int|r^2-s^2|\le\sqrt{1-\langle r,s\rangle^2}. Thus TV⁡(fγ,aγ)≤1−c≤δm\TV(f\gamma,a\gamma)\le\sqrt{1-c}\le\delta_m, even if hh changes sign. Pointwise coefficient Cauchy–Schwarz gives a≤Sma\le S_m, whence ∥a−1∥22≤Cm2−1\lVert a-1\rVert_2^2\le C_m^2-1. The polynomial a−1a-1 is in E2m0E_{2m}^0. Markov contraction and L1≤L2L^1\le L^2 prove the bound.

The spectral theorem gives Pkg→0P^kg\to0 for each g⊥1g\perp1: the spectrum lies in [0,1][0,1], and the spectral mass at 11 is absent. Convergence is uniform on the unit sphere of any fixed finite-dimensional domain, so κ2m(k)→0\kappa_{2m}(k)\to0. Choose mm first to make δm<ϵ/2\delta_m<\epsilon/2, and then kk for the second term. This order avoids both a spectral-gap assumption and an unsupported invariance assumption on the Hermite subspace.

□

The finite Gram matrix Gℓ,k(α,β)=⟨Hα,P2kHβ⟩G_{\ell,k}(\alpha,\beta)=\langle H_\alpha,P^{2k}H_\beta\rangle has largest eigenvalue κℓ(k)2\kappa_\ell(k)^2. Its trace is an upper bound. For m=1m=1, S1(x)=1+∣x∣2S_1(x)=1+|x|^2 and the Gaussian moments E∣x∣2=d\mathbb E|x|^2=d, E∣x∣4=d(d+2)\mathbb E|x|^4=d(d+2) give C12=1+d2+4dC_1^2=1+d^2+4d. For d=1d=1 and m=2m=2, S2(x)=(3+x4)/2S_2(x)=(3+x^4)/2, so C22=(9+6⋅3+105)/4=33C_2^2=(9+6\cdot3+105)/4=33. A numerical waiting time for a concrete nonlinear return library would additionally require enclosed Gram entries; the theorem does not assert that this calculation has been completed.

Proposition A.2 (Retained tape and actual correlations)

Suppose WW is an independent command word with law π\pi, and every FwF_w is an invertible measurable γ\gamma-preserving map. Then

TV⁡(Law⁡(FWZ,W),γ⊗π)=TV⁡(Law⁡(Z),γ). \TV\bigl(\operatorname{Law}(F_WZ,W),\gamma\otimes\pi\bigr) =\TV\bigl(\operatorname{Law}(Z),\gamma\bigr).

If only the last rr commands of a fresh independent sequence of kk commands are retained, the corresponding discrepancy equals that of the marginal configuration before those last rr commands.

Proof

The measurable bijection (z,w)↦(Fwz,w)(z,w)\mapsto(F_wz,w) sends γ⊗π\gamma\otimes\pi to itself. Total variation is invariant under a common measurable bijection. For a retained suffix, its independence from the preceding configuration gives the same product input argument starting at time k−rk-r.

□

This is the total-variation version of the inherited retained-memory principle, not a claim that information conservation is new. Even a one-bit archive may retain the entire relevant map: if commands apply either the identity or an involution RR, the parity of the number of RR commands determines the endpoint map and permits its inverse echo. Correct command marginals alone are also insufficient. With an input density a(Fwz)a(F_wz) relative to γ(dz)π(dw)\gamma(dz)\pi(dw), each command marginal is still π\pi, while the endpoint density is exactly aa. Taking a=21Ha=2\mathbf1_H for a reference half-space HH gives endpoint discrepancy 1/21/2.

Proposition A.3 (Finite or countable command obstruction)

A finite or countable random mixture of invertible deterministic commands sends an initial point mass to a countably supported measure. Its total variation from a non-atomic Gaussian remains one, irrespective of the command probabilities.

Proof

The set of reachable points is countable and has output probability one but Gaussian probability zero.

□

Accordingly a continuous-parameter smoothing construction must explicitly supply its analog command law and a rank condition; it is a different statistical resource. The present finite Gaussian protocol instead restricts the complete original actual law by weak scores. Neither construction obtains its required law from the mere smoothness of a quantum wave.