Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This record demonstrates covariance results for polynomial continued fractions in an analytic framework, implying significant implications for mathematical analysis.
This record deposits the M9 ξ₀-covariance results for polynomial continued fractions (PCFs) b(n)=β_d n^d+…, with the SIARC four-way epistemic discipline made explicit. M9.0 (object level). Each deposited family admits the invariant triple (Δ_d, ‖Δ‖_Pet, ξ₀) with Borel-singularity radius ξ₀(b)=d/β_d1/d; a map of objects, no morphism action asserted. M9.1 (ξ₀ affine-reindexing covariance). For φ(n)=αn+γ, ξ₀(b∘φ)=α⁻¹·ξ₀(b), shift-invariant; grounded on the β_d-only slope-1/d Newton-polygon edge and numerically VERIFIED for the computed pairs d∈{2,3,4}, α∈{2,3}, γ∈{0,1}. All-d lift M9.1⁺. The algebraic core is symbolically derived (d-free) for all d≥2 — the edge polynomial χ_d(c)=1+(−1)ᵈ⁺¹(β_d/d^d)c^d (only β_d on the edge) and the α⁻¹ covariance — carried by a symbolic-in-d leading-symbol lemma (not the d≤6 numerics, which only corroborate). “Symbolically derived” is a grade strictly weaker than the corpus's machine-checked PROVEN (a Lean axiom cone {propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound}, zero sorry): there is no Lean formalization here, and the lemma's general-k step is a hand induction (k=0..8 machine-checked in sympy). The analytic edge⇒Borel-radius step references standard asymptotics literature (Wasow §19 sectorial-existence theory; Birkhoff–Trjitzinsky Borel-summability) and remains cited-conditional — it is NOT discharged here. \"VERIFIED\" is restricted to the computed (d,β_d,φ); no d≥7 claim. Artifacts: a symbolic+numeric derivation script (lemma31_edge_derivation.py), its raw output and results JSON, a derivation note, and an AEAL provenance ledger.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papanokechi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: