Same step, same identification of real lines
The argument
The passage from Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 depends on an unproven compatibility, LANA's (9-1), which asks that two isomorphisms between pointed real lines, one from the q-pilot's native structure and one from the multiradial reconstruction, coincide for some choice of integral structure. The Scholze-Stix hexagon is likewise a demand that identifications of pointed copies of the real line built from the q-pilot and from the Θ-pilot agree, at the same step of the proof, and LANA itself says both reports locate the problem there and in the identification of copies of R; so (9-1) is the 2018 demand in finer dress, with the indeterminacies moved into the choice of integral structure.
Does it work?
- Does it follow?
- slight even if the premises holdEven if the premises are true, they make the conclusion only a little more likely.constitution →
- Do the premises hold?
- 1 supported
Granting that an unproven compatibility sits at this step, which is well supported, the shared location and the shared form (agreement of identifications of pointed real lines) make identity plausible but do not establish it: two problems can share a step and a type of object while differing in what makes them fail. The argument would become strong with an explicit translation showing that (9-1), with its indeterminacies, forces commutativity of the hexagon; no one has supplied one.
Premises
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →The passage from Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 in IUT depends on an unproven compatibility between the q-pilot's native construction and its multiradial reconstruction.
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.