amendmentCycle_eq
The equality fixes the consciousness-gap amendment cycle at 45 years inside the σ-conservation model of legal precedent. Jurisprudence researchers applying Recognition Science to stare decisis cite this bound when deriving maximum amendment rates from totalSigma conservation. The proof reduces directly by reflexivity to the constant definition of the cycle.
claimThe consciousness-gap amendment cycle equals $45$.
background
In the Precedent Stability from σ-Conservation framework, a Precedent carries a σ-weight equal to its jurisdictional level (trial/appeal/supreme). The total σ of a legal corpus must remain conserved across overturning events; overturning a high-σ precedent without a σ-equivalent replacement strictly decreases total σ. The upstream definition sets the consciousness-gap amendment cycle to 45 years, representing the frustration period that bounds amendment rates at one σ-conserving change per cycle.
proof idea
The proof is a one-line wrapper that applies reflexivity to the definition of amendmentCycle.
why it matters in Recognition Science
This equality supplies the amendment_cycle_eq field to precedentStabilityCert, which assembles the full stability certificate including totalSigma_nil, totalSigma_append, overturn_decreases_sigma, and maxAmendmentRate_eq. It fills the gap-45 frustration period in the jurisprudence track of the Recognition Science chain. The module falsifier is a documented constitutional amendment rate above 1/45 yr in any democracy with more than 100 yr of constitutional history.
scope and limits
- Does not derive the numerical value 45 from deeper axioms.
- Does not model non-constitutional legal systems.
- Does not address amendment rates in systems younger than 100 years.
Lean usage
have h : amendmentCycle = 45 := amendmentCycle_eqformal statement (Lean)
97theorem amendmentCycle_eq : amendmentCycle = 45 := rfl
proof body
Term-mode proof.
98
99/-- Predicted maximum amendment rate (per yr). -/