⚜ PRINCIPIA ORTHOGONA · Vol VI · Roots · WP-111 ← WP-110 · Not Rough Enough
#Bifurcation
Vol VI · Roots · WP-111 · 2026-09-13 · Cross-cutting · Verified by wp111-verify.py

The Cardioid Is the Locus

The heart-shaped body at the centre of the Mandelbrot set is not merely the region where the fixed point is attracting. Its boundary is, in closed form, the set of parameters at which the multiplier has modulus one — the same codimension-one event the corpus already models in continuous time in CardiacHopfReduction.lean. The two run together at rational internal angle and part at irrational, and what separates them is arithmetic, not dynamics.
Methodclosed-form multiplier for z ↦ z² + c; numerical orbit and cycle-period tests
continued-fraction arithmetic on exact integer convergents
Claim typean identification in closed form, plus a stated boundary to an analogy
every statement about irrational rotation numbers is quoted, not proved
Verificationbook6/wp111-verify.py — 7 blocks, standard library only
all checks pass; closes with an [HONESTY] block
Two objects in this corpus have been treated as neighbours without the neighbourhood being written down. Chapter 8 takes the Mandelbrot set as the picture of a map that contains itself; CardiacHopfReduction.lean reduces a three-variable oscillator to a limit cycle through a Hopf bifurcation. The connection is exact and it is one line of algebra. The interesting part is not that it exists but where it stops.

1 · The multiplier, and the curve

For z ↦ z² + c a fixed point satisfies z* = z*² + c, and the derivative there is λ = 2z*. Ask for the parameters at which that multiplier sits on the unit circle — λ = e — and the answer falls out with no approximation:

z* = e/2   ⇒   c(θ) = z* − z*² = e/2 − e2iθ/4

That is the main cardioid. Not a curve resembling it, not a numerical fit — the boundary itself, parametrised by the argument of the multiplier. Across 400 angles the script finds |λ| − 1 and the fixed-point residual both below 1.11 × 10−16. The landmarks come out exact:

internal angle θcmultiplierevent
01/4+1cusp — saddle-node
π/21/4 + i/2iroot of the 1/4 bulb
2π/3−1/8 + (3√3/8)ie2πi/3root of the 1/3 bulb
π−3/4−1period doubling

The two ends of that table are the two real cases — a fold at λ = +1, a flip at λ = −1. Every angle strictly between them is a complex-conjugate pair crossing the unit circle, which in discrete time is the Neimark–Sacker bifurcation and in continuous time is Andronov–Hopf.

2 · The crossing is a bifurcation

Scaling c by 0.99 and 1.01 about the origin moves it across the curve. Inside, the orbit of 0 settles onto the fixed point; outside, it does not.

θ|zn+1 − zn| insideoutside
2π/33.79 × 10−152.98 × 10−1
π/22.46 × 10−153.30 × 10−1
1.03.14 × 10−16divergent

3 · The rotation number is visible in the picture

What makes this a Hopf-type event rather than a bare loss of stability is that the crossing carries a rotation number, and the rotation number is legible on the boundary. The bulb rooted at internal angle p/q carries an attracting cycle of period exactly q. Eight rationals, eight periods, no exceptions:

p/qroot cperiod found
1/2−0.7500000002
1/3−0.125000000 + 0.649519053i3
2/3−0.125000000 − 0.649519053i3
1/4+0.250000000 + 0.500000000i4
1/5+0.356762746 + 0.328581945i5
2/5−0.481762746 + 0.531656755i5
1/6+0.375000000 + 0.216506351i6
3/7−0.606356884 + 0.412399740i7

4 · The continuous twin, in this corpus

CardiacHopfReduction.lean reduces the three-variable oscillator ẋ = μx − ωy − xu, ẏ = ωx + μy − yu, u̇ = −Lu + (x²+y²) on the leading-order centre manifold u = (x²+y²)/L to a single radial equation. Block [5] checks the assertion independently of the Lean file, on two thousand random states:

ṙ = μr − r³/L   ·   r* = √(μL)   ·   (d/dr)|r* = −2μ

The identity holds to 3.55 × 10−15; the derivative at the limit cycle is exactly −2μ, so the bifurcation is supercritical for every μ > 0, as the file’s header claims.

One thing that drops out, and it is the one that matters

The rotation frequency ω does not appear in the radial equation at all. Whether ω is rational, irrational, Diophantine or Liouville makes no difference whatsoever to the amplitude, the stability or the existence of the limit cycle. Hold on to that sentence; section 5 is entirely about the fact that its discrete-time counterpart is false.

Since 2026-09-12 this file is kernel-audited

CardiacHopfReduction.lean compiles under the repository pin v4.32.0 and all four of its declarations report [propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound]. The evidence lands in tools/verify-audit/<date>/geometry__CardiacHopfReduction.axioms.txt, and block [8] of the script reads the most recent one rather than a fixed date, so a re-audit cannot leave this sentence behind. What the audit does not do is repeat: the file is still outside every build target, so that result dates from the day it was run and nothing after it. Block [5] remains an independent check of the same algebra by a different route, which is worth keeping for the reason the kernel cannot supply — see below.

5 · Where the two part, and why it is not a dynamical reason

For a smooth map, whether a Neimark–Sacker crossing produces an invariant circle turns on a nondegeneracy condition and on the rotation number avoiding the low-order resonances. Beyond that, the arithmetic of the angle does not enter. In the holomorphic case it is the whole question. At an irrational internal angle the fixed point of z² + c is linearisable — a Siegel disk — or it is not, and which one happens depends on how well the angle is approximated by rationals.

Block [6] computes only the arithmetic, on numbers defined by their continued fractions so that the convergents are exact integers:

rotation numberpartial Brjuno sums
golden mean  [0;1,1,1,…]0.000, 0.693, 1.243, 1.779, 2.195, 2.515, 2.750, 2.918 … 3.286 after 30 terms
built to diverge  an+1 = ⌈eqn0.000, 1.386, 2.736, 3.760 — increments 1.386, 1.350, 1.024

The second construction forces every increment above 1 by choosing each partial quotient larger than eqn, so the sum diverges by construction rather than by observation. Two rotation numbers, the same map, the same normal form, the same codimension — and a classification that differs because of a number-theoretic property of the angle.

The statement worth carrying

A Hopf intuition transports across the cardioid boundary at rational internal angle, where a period-q bulb attaches exactly where the multiplier says it should. At irrational angle it does not transport, and the obstruction is arithmetic. Section 4 makes the contrast sharp: in the continuous-time reduction the frequency cancels out of the radial equation entirely. The discrete case cannot cancel it, because there the frequency is the multiplier.

Open

Nothing here proves any statement about irrational angles. Siegel’s theorem, Brjuno’s condition and Yoccoz’s converse are quoted. No orbit is integrated at an irrational angle, and deliberately so: a finite orbit cannot distinguish a linearisable fixed point from one that is not, and a script that appeared to do it would be measuring its own tolerance.

Two items remain on the Lean side and neither is mathematical. CardiacHopfReduction.lean is audited but untargeted, so a later regression would not fail the job; declaring it @[default_target] is what makes the audit repeat. And supercritical is a clean theorem whose statement, 0 < L → −(1/L) < 0, mentions no vector field — the identification of −1/L as the first Lyapunov coefficient is carried by its docstring and by nothing the kernel saw. The axiom gate cannot report that, because it reports axioms and not whether a statement earns its name. Section 4’s (d/dr)|r* = −2μ is the content the name claims, and it is a provable statement about the reduced field rather than about a reciprocal.

6 · Against the infinity chapters

Five pages in this corpus already work with self-similarity and nesting, and each of them gains a different thing from the identification above.

Read beside WP-109, which found one word carrying two subjects and a theorem separating them above dimension two, this is the same shape with the separation moved: one normal form carrying two subjects, and an arithmetic condition separating them off the rationals.

Corrections

2026-09-12. Section 4 and the footer first described CardiacHopfReduction.lean as not having been through the kernel, which was correct when written. The file was compiled and audited the same day under v4.32.0: four declarations, all on [propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound], report committed under tools/verify-audit/2026-09-12/. Closing it required one tactic — field_simp left μ·r·(1−1) = 0 in limit_cycle and ring discharges it. The open items in section 5 were rewritten accordingly; the file is audited, not targeted.

7 · References

  1. Douady, A. & Hubbard, J. H. (1984–85). Étude dynamique des polynômes complexes. Publications Mathématiques d’Orsay.
  2. Milnor, J. (2006). Dynamics in One Complex Variable, 3rd ed. Princeton University Press.
  3. Siegel, C. L. (1942). Iteration of analytic functions. Annals of Mathematics 43, 607–612.
  4. Brjuno, A. D. (1971). Analytic form of differential equations. Transactions of the Moscow Mathematical Society.
  5. Yoccoz, J.-C. (1995). Théorème de Siegel, nombres de Bruno et polynômes quadratiques. Astérisque 231.
  6. Kuznetsov, Y. A. (2004). Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory, 3rd ed. Springer. (Andronov–Hopf and Neimark–Sacker normal forms.)
  7. Guckenheimer, J. & Holmes, P. (1983). Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields. Springer.
Proved · kernel-checked
limit_cycle CardiacHopfReduction.lean:41
supercritical CardiacHopfReduction.lean:52 Each name above is declared in this repository at the line shown and appears in an axiom report with no sorryAx. A clean axiom report is not a reading of the statement: per R20, a theorem can assume its conclusion and still report clean. Follow the link before citing one as evidence.