Manuscript XIX-C@1 · XIX-C.tex · proposition · 98b067d9
Proposition: One finite channel, two different evolution limits
Why finite certification does not select a continuum evolution › An explicit pair of incompatible limits · lines 1020–1096 · proof included or linked
XIX-C@1#prop:two-limits
Fix , a qubit reset channel
and the finite channel
There are two refinement families whose coarse member is , each obeying one-site scheduled locality and exact reference-stable channel semantics, but whose uniform compact-time diamond limits are different.
Proof. Choose . Set
For , define
Every channel acts on one site, so every member has the same trivial spatial support ceiling. Every channel is complete.
For , idempotence of gives
Define
It is a channel and ; it is continuous at every .
For , the expansion
and give
uniformly on that interval. Since , this is uniform diamond convergence with identity encoders and decoders.
The coarse channels agree: . But for , on input ,
The two outputs have trace distance . Thus their limiting evolutions differ despite the common finite member and identical locality ceiling.
Displayed formulas in this passage
unlabeled · line 1023
unlabeled · line 1028
unlabeled · line 1039
unlabeled · line 1050
unlabeled · line 1059
unlabeled · line 1065
unlabeled · line 1074
unlabeled · line 1078
unlabeled · line 1088