Theoretical analysis establishes section criteria for rank-three positive definite lattices in four-dimensional Lorentzian spaces, revealing realization cost as a discriminant genus invariant.
For an integral lattice of signature (3,1) and a positive definite integral lattice L of rank 3, a criterion is given for L to be a primitive timelike section by a primitive vector of norm -n. The criterion runs on three data -- signature, bilinear discriminant form and parity (type I/II) -- and states that such a section exists if and only if there is an anti-isometry of glue subgroups whose graph satisfies an isometry of discriminant forms and whose glued overlattice has the same parity as the ambient. Both requirements are shown to be load-bearing: the order-only version of the first fails at the first non-cyclic discriminant, and without the second the statement is false, with an explicit counterexample on diag(1,1,2,-2). The reverse implication rests on two checkable conditions, (T0) that the named data determine the genus of the ambient and (T0c) that this genus contains one class; for rank 4, signature (3,1) and |det| <= 4 both are proved -- (T0) by a complete enumeration of genera (exactly seven, with the triple of data separating them pairwise), (T0c) by Eichler's theorem with a margin of 5^6. Substituting a trivial discriminant returns the unimodular condition <1/n> of the preceding paper, and a parity rider shows that boundary to be sharp. From the criterion the minimal ambient discriminant -- the cost of a lattice -- is shown to depend only on the bilinear discriminant form, hence to be a genus invariant, and a closed expression for it is given whose range is finite by structure rather than by a search bound. Evaluated on fourteen representatives the expression gives a table of costs indexed by the discriminant form, not by Bravais type: cost is neither a type invariant nor monotone in the order of the discriminant. The cubic centrings obtain exact addresses, FCC = 3 and BCC = 8, and the blocking of lower values for FCC splits into two distinct congruence mechanisms. No physical reading of any object is made anywhere in the work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vladimir Sobol (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: