Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This randomized trial evaluates nonlinear robustness in quasiperiodic chains, suggesting significant differences in their dynamics.
We study the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger (DNLS) equation on two quasiperiodic tight-binding chains: the Fibonacci chain (n=2) and the Rauzy–tribonacci chain (n=3), generated by their respective substitution rules. Starting from mid-gap eigenstates of the linear Hamiltonian, we integrate the DNLS time evolution over a range of nonlinearity strengths λ ∈ [0,10] and track the inverse participation ratio (IPR) as a measure of localization. The tribonacci chain exhibits a mid-gap IPR approximately four times larger than the Fibonacci chain in the linear limit, consistent with the stronger multifractality of Rauzy fractal eigenstates. Under nonlinear perturbation, the Fibonacci mid-gap state delocalizes rapidly (IPR drops ~57% at λ=1.5), while the tribonacci state remains nearly pinned (IPR drop <5% at the same coupling). We term this differential nonlinear robustness: the tribonacci chain's more strongly multifractal spectrum provides greater effective resistance to nonlinear delocalization. The characteristic decay constant η ≈ 1.839287 is the Perron–Frobenius eigenvalue of the tribonacci companion matrix, whose existence and key properties (η > 1, strict antitonicity of η⁻ᵏ) are formally verified in Lean 4/Mathlib4 in the companion AXLE repository (github.com/TOTOGT/AXLE). These results constitute, to our knowledge, the first numerical study of DNLS dynamics on a tribonacci substitution chain, and identify a qualitative difference in nonlinear response between n=2 and n=3 substitution-generated quasicrystal models. Companion code:(dnls_nbonacci.py) and Lean 4 verification file (TribonacciDNLS.lean) are included in this deposit - see V1. Key analytic lemmas (η > 1, strict antitonicity of η⁻ᵏ) are formally verified in Lean 4/Mathlib4 without sorry. Open proof obligations are tracked in the AXLE sorry roadmap.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pablo Nogueira Grossi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: