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

Back to manuscript

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

Nearby in this section