🧭 New here?
Take a guided tour of the site.

← all proofs

Radius reconciliation

We compute sharp inclusion radii r(φ₁→φ₂) = sup{ r : φ₁(r𝔻) ⊆ φ₂(𝔻) } for the Ma–Minda classes (the discovery machine gft/radius.py), then join every one against the literature so nothing is presented as ours without a real citation. This page is that join. Verdicts are never conflated, and a result is labelled a candidate — never novel — until an external literature check and expert sign-off both clear.

Census

verdict count meaning
KNOWN 4 matches a published value for the same pair (exact agreement)
KNOWN_GENERAL 277 fixed by a standard inclusion lemma (order-α / Janowski target, or containment) — not a discovery
CANDIDATE_IMPROVE 1 our exact value sharpens a published non-sharp bound (pending sign-off)
CONTRADICTION 0 same pair, both claimed sharp, values disagree (audit)
UNRESOLVED 0 a claim exists but isn't comparable yet (implicit root / flagged)
NO_EXTRACTED_CLAIM 323 no literature claim extracted so farnot a novelty assertion

Joined to the literature

source → target our radius verdict literature
sine → sigmoid 0.480381 CANDIDATE_IMPROVE #176 Theorem 2.9(ii)
cardioid → sigmoid 0.301221 KNOWN #176 Theorem 2.7(ii)
crescent → sigmoid 0.389089 KNOWN #176 Theorem 2.8(i)
exponential → sigmoid 0.379885 KNOWN #176 Theorem 2.6(iii) particular
lemniscate → sigmoid 0.710682 KNOWN #176 Theorem 2.6(ii) particular

The KNOWN rows are exact agreements with published sharp results — an independent check that the engine computes the genuine sigmoid-radius.

  • sine → sigmoid (under review — not yet asserted novel): our sharp value asin((e-1)/(e+1)) improves the non-sharp literature bound. Proof →

Generated by scripts/build_reconciliation_radii.py from scripts/reconcile_radii.py output. Re-bake after any new extraction.

↑↓ navigate openesc close
✦ You're explorer #3,572 to wander the registry - thanks for stopping by. Tell us what you'd like to see →
💬 Feedback