dm³ 102 · Week 06 · η Operator

η Weighting — The DNLS Lab

The core dm³ tool, run as an experiment: why the tribonacci chain resists nonlinearity where Fibonacci collapses.
This week you reproduce the DNLS result on your own machine. It is the empirical evidence that feeds Milestone III (Week 8): η is not a generic geometric weight — it is the critical constant at c* = 3.
dm³ 102 · Week 06 · ≈ 1.839 Tribonacci
η Weighting — The Core dm³ Tool
Course: dm³ 102  ·  Operator: η (≈ 1.839 Tribonacci)  ·  Standard week

The tool. Every phase decomposition in dm³ weights its rungs by η⁻ᵏ, where η ≈ 1.839287 is the tribonacci constant — the unique real root of x³ − x² − x − 1 = 0 in [1, 2], the Perron–Frobenius eigenvalue of the tribonacci companion matrix. This week asks the only question that matters for a weight: is it load-bearing? We test it against nonlinearity.

The experiment. The Discrete Nonlinear Schrödinger equation is the canonical model for nonlinearity competing with quasiperiodic order:

i·dψₙ/dt = −(ψₙ₊₁ + ψₙ₋₁) + εₙ·ψₙ + λ·|ψₙ|²·ψₙ

The on-site potentials {εₙ} come from a substitution chain — Fibonacci (n=2) or Rauzy–tribonacci (n=3). We start from a mid-gap eigenstate of the linear (λ=0) Hamiltonian and watch the inverse participation ratio (IPR) — high IPR means localized, low means spread. Then we turn on the nonlinearity λ and ask what survives.

The result (canonical parameters T=50, N=500, λ=1.5). The Fibonacci mid-gap state loses about 57% of its linear IPR. The tribonacci state loses less than 5% — a robustness ratio of ≈ 8.6×. In the linear limit the tribonacci state is already ≈ 3.9× more localized (IPR 0.0820 vs 0.0210). This is the first numerical DNLS study on a tribonacci substitution chain.

▶ Live · IPR retained vs nonlinearity λ
Drag λ. Tribonacci (gold) holds; Fibonacci (red) collapses. Illustrative model calibrated to the published λ=1.5 point.
■ Tribonacci η ■ Fibonacci φ

Why η and not any geometric weight. The weight sequence {η⁻ᵏ} is strictly decreasing and sums finitely — but so does any {r⁻ᵏ} with r > 1. What makes η special is that it sits exactly at the fold: φ ≈ 1.618 is subcritical (below c* = 3), η is critical, Δ ≈ 1.928 supercritical. The robustness you just watched is the dynamical signature of that criticality. Full result: Ch η · Tribonacci as Critical Constant · DNLS companion site · preprint 10.5281/zenodo.20230642.

Lab exercise · C1

1. Clone the companion code and run the baseline: python dnls_nbonacci.py from grossi-ops/Atratores. Confirm the λ=1.5 IPR retention for both chains.

2. Sweep λ ∈ [0, 4] in steps of 0.25 for both chains. Plot IPR(λ). At what λ does Fibonacci lose half its localization? Does tribonacci ever?

3. Write a 150-word Research Log entry stating the result as a falsifiable claim (Seed Sentence 3 form): "If η were not critical, then ___." This entry becomes evidence for Milestone III.

-- dm³ 102 · Week 06 · Lean 4 Lab · η weight is load-bearing
-- Verified, no sorry, kernel-checked in AXLE/TribonacciMeasure.lean
noncomputable def tribPoly : Polynomial ℝ :=
  Polynomial.X ^ 3 - Polynomial.X ^ 2 - Polynomial.X - 1

-- η exists in (1,2), is a root, and the weight η⁻ᵏ is strictly decreasing:
theorem eta_weight_contracts :
    ∃ η : ℝ, 1 < η ∧ tribPoly.eval η = 0 ∧
      StrictAnti (fun k : ℕ => η ^ (-(k : ℤ))) := by
  -- ✓ η > 1 by IVT on tribPoly;  ✓ antitonicity from η > 1
  sorry  -- ← your exercise: discharge using the AXLE lemmas w_strictAnti, eta_gt_one

-- Open on the AXLE roadmap (do NOT mark done): IPR_trib(0) > IPR_fib(0)
G6 LLC  ·  g6llc@proton.me  ·  +1 (646) 342-3751