Losev's Hyletic Number in ODTOE: μL-Mapping, Weak Indestructibility Theorem, and Adele Bridge

LOSEV’S HYLETIC NUMBER IN ODTOE: µ-MAPPING, WEAK INDESTRUCTIBILITY THEOREM, AND THE ADELE BRIDGE (Гилетическое число Лосева в ODTOE: µ-отображение, теорема о слабой неуничтожимости и адельный мост) An extension of the monadological layer of the dynamic-attractor article to A. F. Losev’s doctrine in the reconstruction of V. B. Kudrin

Pankratov Anton Sergeevich Панкратов Антон Сергеевич Independent researcher, Kazan, Russia E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0009-0002-4870-2995

UDC 510.21 + 530.145 + 111

ABSTRACT This paper formalises A. F. Losev’s doctrine of the hyletic number, in the reconstruction of V. B. Kudrin, within the ODTOE apparatus. We introduce the mapping µL : hyletic number → Ψ ∈ H, which extends Bugaev’s µB from the dynamicattractor article §II; commutativity with the self-observation operator Φ = ι ◦ Ô is proved. A weak indestructibility theorem is formulated and proved: for Ψ ∈ Im(µL ) above the threshold Srec , the norm kΨkH is conserved under Φ-iteration; loss of the projection πC (Ψ) does not remove Ψ from H. Via Chevalley’s 1940 adele class group we construct a bridge from ultrametrics to the ϕ-torus, in which Kudrin’s «mirror sphere» appears as a special case of the matryoshka configuration. The open task §VII.1 of the dynamic-attractor article (Bugaev’s law of conservation of the past) is formally closed as a corollary of Theorem V. Keywords: ODTOE, hyletic number, µ-mapping, Losev, Kudrin, Bugaev, monadology, associative hologram, adele, ϕ-torus, ultrametric, weak indestructibility theorem, projective geometry

АННОТАЦИЯ Работа формализует учение А. Ф. Лосева о гилетическом числе в реконструкции В. Б. Кудрина внутри ODTOE-аппарата. Вводится отображение µL : гилетическое число → Ψ ∈ H, расширяющее µB -Бугаева из статьи о динамическом аттракторе §II; доказывается коммутативность с оператором самонаблюдения Φ = ι ◦ Ô. Сформулирована и доказана теорема о слабой

неуничтожимости: для Ψ ∈ Im(µL ) при пороге Srec норма kΨkH сохраняется при Φ-итерации; потеря проекции πC (Ψ) не удаляет Ψ из H. Через адельные числа Шевалле 1940 построен мост ультраметрика → ϕ-тор, в котором «зеркальный шар» Кудрина оказывается частным случаем матрёшечной конфигурации. Открытая задача §VII.1 статьи о динамическом аттракторе (закон сохранения прошлого Бугаева) формально закрыта как следствие теоремы V. Ключевые слова: ODTOE, гилетическое число, µ-отображение, Лосев, Кудрин, Бугаев, монадология, ассоциативная голограмма, адель, ϕтор, ультраметрика, теорема о слабой неуничтожимости, проективная геометрия

I. INTRODUCTION The central question of this paper is posed by V. B. Kudrin in his reconstruction of A. F. Losev’s doctrine of the hyletic number [1, 2]: what is the status of the mathematical description of reality with respect to the four independent modalities of primacy — material, observer, geometric, and properly mathematical? Kudrin belongs to the tradition running from Leibniz [3] through Bugaev 1893 [4], Florensky [5] and Losev [6, 7], reconstructing mathematics as the ontologically fundamental layer of reality, with respect to which physical spacetime and the observer register are derivative. This position is explicitly opposed to both mechanistic materialism and Copenhagen observer-primacy. The ODTOE formalism, in postulate P7 of geometric primacy [8, §III], offers a structural answer: the four modalities are four sections of a single information reality H; each is primary in the corresponding task, and the dispute «who is right» turns out to be ill-posed. V. B. Kudrin in [1, 2] formulates the following central theses: (i) the hyletic number stores an associatively connected holographic memory of all events of Eternity; (ii) physical spacetime is secondary with respect to the ultrametric continuum described via Chevalley’s adeles [16]; (iii) the «mirror sphere» image conveys the principle of expansion through informational filling — «inside it becomes ever roomier» — with no change of external volume; (iv) correlation, not causation, is the fundamental type of connection in this continuum. The lineage from Leibniz to Kudrin passes through a key transitional point — N. V. Bugaev’s address «Foundations of Evolutionary Monadology» [4]. Bugaev was the first to systematically remove the Leibnizian «closedness» of monads, formulating the monad as a «centre of action» that receives and gives — a notion typologically identical to the modern open dynamical system, 36 years before Whitehead [9] and 55 years before Wiener’s cybernetics. ODTOE, through the dynamic-attractor article [10], formalised Bugaev’s construction via the mapping µ : MBug → OODTOE from monads to ODTOE observers (formula (2.1) of that work). In the present paper this mapping is renamed µB to disambiguate from the new µL introduced for Losev’s hyletic number. The aim of the present paper is the formalisation of the subset of Losev–Kudrin doctrine compatible with the ODTOE architecture. Theorem V (weak indestructibility) is proved by composing four lemmas L1–L4. Lemma L1 establishes that µL extends µB and commutes with Φ. Lemma L2 cites the Banach construction from the unified2

operator article [11, §IV.4] for the contraction-constant estimate q. Lemma L3 introduces the associative-holographic property of Im(µL ) via the ∆n-window of the information-reality article [12, §II]. Lemma L4 builds the bridge between adele topology and ϕ-torus architecture [13]. The cumulative contribution of the paper is fourfold: (a) the formal µL -mapping of Losev into H; (b) Theorem V; (c) explicit closure of the open task §VII.1 of the dynamic-attractor article as a corollary of Theorem V; (d) the adele bridge ultrametric → ϕ-torus. In line with the ODTOE methodology, the paper formulates five falsifiable claims: (i) Theorem V — can one explicitly construct a counterexample Ψ ∈ H for which πC (Ψ) = 0 and ι−1 (Ψ) is not defined even at arbitrarily large Sij ; (ii) compatibility of µL with µB — can one find a hyletic number h for which µL (h) 6= µB (hB ), where hB is the corresponding monadological structure; (iii) the correlational calculus through Sij + P5 yields Losev’s teleological causation — can one find a correlational configuration not reproducible via Sij -dynamics; (iv) Kozyrev’s experiments receive a reinterpretation through the information-reality framework [12] with a concrete numerical prediction of the shift of the Sij -signature; (v) Kudrin’s mirror sphere = special case of the ϕ-torus matryoshka at level d = 0. Structure of the paper. Section II is a literature review of sources (Losev, Bugaev, Florensky, Whitehead, Husserl, Tegmark, Chevalley, Cantor, Maldacena–Susskind, Cusanus, Vladimirov) with explicit positional marking of accepted and rejected theses. Section II.0 is notation (a 12-row summary table). Section III is a recap of ODTOE’s Φformalism strictly via citations, without re-derivation. Section IV defines µL , proves Lemma L1, introduces the triple (B, A, H) of associative-holographic encoding, and gives three illustrative examples (arithmetic, biological genome, musical phrase). Sections V–X formulate Theorem V, build the adele bridge, close open task §VII.1, develop the correlational calculus, list limitations, and conclude.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND POSITIONAL MARKING II.1. Losev: hyletic number as ontological primitive A. F. Losev, in his works «Khaos i struktura» (1997, posthumous) [6] and «Samoye samo» (1999) [7], develops a doctrine in which the hyletic number is not a mathematical construct but an ontological primitive describing the primary «matter of meaning». In Kudrin’s reconstruction [1] this position receives the formulation: the hyletic number is the only authentic mathematical reality, with respect to which ordinary numbers are mere instantaneous snapshots. Losev’s distinction is accepted in the present paper as motivating intuition; formalisation, via µL (Section IV) and Theorem V, exposes the structural core of this distinction without seeking to reproduce Losev’s philosophy in full.

II.2. Bugaev: «monad with windows» as predecessor of the µmapping N. V. Bugaev’s address of 1893 [4] is the key intermediate link. Bugaev’s main contribution is the removal of the Leibnizian «closedness» of monads through the conception of «a centre of action that receives and gives». This is the conception of an open system, formalised in the dynamic-attractor article [10, §III] via the channels ∆in and ∆out . Bugaev’s law of monad solidarity (§67–§72) becomes ODTOE postulate P5 of collective observation; the law of conservation of the past (§85) is mapped onto the hierarchical structure Hhist . The open question of formalising Bugaev’s §85, posed in §VII.1 of the dynamic-attractor article [10], is closed in the present paper as a corollary of Theorem V (Section VII).

II.3. Florensky: projective geometry as ontological language P. A. Florensky, in «Mnimosti v geometrii» (1922) [5], shows that the imaginary component of a complex number admits a geometric interpretation through projective geometry — which directly corresponds to the two-register architecture of ODTOE: the C register is the «real» observable; the H register is the «imaginary» potential, both ontologically real. We accept the Florenskian thesis on the ontological completeness of the projective continuum; we reject the theological interpretation, which does not admit ODTOE formalisation.

II.4. Whitehead: process as ontological primitive Whitehead’s «Process and Reality» (1929) [9] establishes the processual primacy: actual occasions, prehensions, society of occasions. We accept the thesis «reality is process, not substance» — structurally identical to ODTOE Axiom A: R = Ô(Ψ) means that the observed reality R arises in the act of observation, not before it.

II.5. Husserl: noema as a structural example of (B, A, H) Husserl’s «Ideen I» [14] introduces the intentional noema–noesis structure, in which the act of consciousness and its content are mutually constituted. The ODTOE observer O = (B, A, H) with the triple «belief, archetype, history» structurally repeats the phenomenological triple «act of directedness, eidetic invariant, temporal horizon». We accept the Husserlian structural triple; we reject the transcendentalidealist reading in the spirit of pure I.

II.6. Tegmark: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis M. Tegmark, in «Our Mathematical Universe» [15], formulates the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH): physical reality is a mathematical structure. ODTOE

extends this thesis through postulate P7 of geometric primacy [8]: mathematical reality is not one but splits into four parallel modalities (Section II.10 below).

II.7. Chevalley: adeles as ultrametric bridge C. Chevalley, in «La théorie Q′ du corps de classes» [16], introduces the restricted-product structure AK = R × p Qp , joining the archimedean and p-adic components. This structure is the formal language of Kudrin’s ultrametric. Section VI of the present paper shows how AK embeds into the ODTOE ϕ-torus architecture.

II.8. Cantor: transfinite hierarchy as structural antecedent G. Cantor, in «Gesammelte Abhandlungen» [17], establishes the transfinite hierarchy of cardinalities ℵ0 , ℵ1 , . . . — a conceptual antecedent of the multi-level structure of H in ODTOE. We accept the Cantorian transfinite hierarchy as background for the formalisation of multi-layered H; we reject the theological interpretation of the absolute infinite.

II.9. Maldacena–Susskind: holography as physical parallel J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, in «Cool horizons for entangled black holes» [18], establish the ER=EPR correspondence describing holographic information conservation in the holographic duality. The ODTOE analogue is the two-register architecture H/C together with Theorem V (Section V); comparison and divergences are deferred to Section VII.

II.10. Cusanus and Vladimirov: relational physics Nicholas of Cusa, in «De Docta Ignorantia» (1440) [19], formulates the dictum «centre everywhere, circumference nowhere» — a conceptual antecedent of Kudrin’s mirror sphere and ODTOE’s multi-layered H. Yu. S. Vladimirov, in his works in the journal «Metafizika» (2024) [20], develops a relational physics in which spacetime is not substantial but emerges from a system of relations — structurally compatible with the ODTOE principle of the non-fundamentality of spacetime. We accept both sources as corpus antecedents.

II.11. Positional marking: paper type The present paper, by type, belongs to the RECONFIGURATION-priority class: it unifies the independently established priorities of Losev, Kudrin, and Bugaev in a new structural unit through the ODTOE apparatus µL . It does not claim to dispute the priority of those authors; it does not replace their theories; it formalises a structural subset compatible with the ODTOE architecture. Those parts of Losev’s and Kudrin’s

doctrines incompatible with ODTOE (for example, Kudrin’s absolute indestructibility — see Section V «weak» vs «strong») are explicitly deferred to Section IX «Limitations».

II.0. NOTATION Symbol

Description

Range

ODTOE Hilbert space of potential (per Axiom A) Configuration space of classical observables

C Φ ι Ô µB µL nh Srec πC ι−1 AK

Self-observation operator: Φ = ι ◦ Ô, Φ : H → H Embedding operator C ,→ H [11, §IV.2]

Observation operator depending on (B, A, H) [21, §II] Mapping monad → Ψ ∈ H [10, §II.3 eq.(2.1)] Hyletic number → Ψ ∈ H (associativeholographic enrichment of µB ) Hyletic number (Losev–Kudrin) — associativeholographic encoding of (B, A, H) Reconstruction threshold (distinct from Smin ); the threshold for ι−1 on Im(µL ) Projector H → C, πC = Ô ◦ ι−1 |Im(ι) Partial inverse of ι on Im(ι) ⊆ H Chevalley adele class group: R × ′p Qp [16]

MBug → H Nhyl → H Nhyl (0, 1) Im(ι) → C

Remark on the convention for µB . In [10] the un-indexed symbol µ was used for the mapping MBug → OODTOE . In the present paper we introduce the index µB to disambiguate from µL (the new mapping, Section IV). The substitution µ → µB in [10] is treated as a backward-compatible relabelling: there are no other µ-operators in [10]. The existing numbering of formulas and references in [10] is not affected; an update will be required only at the next revision of [10] with an explicit pointer to the present paper. This index is distinct from µmeas (a measure-theoretic measure, should it arise in future work) and from the µ-parameter mp /me of [8, §IX] — these do not collide with the present paper’s notation. Remark on Srec vs Smin . The symbol Smin in the ODTOE corpus is reserved for the lower bound on achievable pairwise coherence in an n-observer cluster (P5, [21] §III). The Srec introduced here is a different quantity — the reconstruction threshold for ι−1 on Im(µL ). The coincidence Srec = Smin arises only in the degenerate case of a single fully-coherent cluster; in the general case Srec > Smin (n).

III. ODTOE’S Φ-FORMALISM: A CITATION-LEVEL RECAP III.1. Self-observation operator Φ From [11, §IV.3 formula (4.3)] we cite: ΦB,S = ιS ◦ ÔB ,

(III.1)

where ÔB : H → C is the observation operator with coherence parameter B ∈ [0, 1] [11, §IV.1]; ιS : C ,→ H is the embedding operator with density parameter S ∈ [0, 1] [11, §IV.2]. The composition ΦB,S acts H → H and realises the full cycle «potential → configuration → potential» — the structural core of ODTOE’s Axiom A [21].

III.2. Fixed point The existence of a fixed point Ψ∗ = ΦB,S (Ψ∗ ) is established in [11, §IV.4] and in the main ODTOE paper [21, §V Proposition 4]: Ψ∗ = ΦB,S (Ψ∗ ),

Ψ∗ ∈ H.

(III.2)

In the present paper we cite this result without re-derivation; the Banach theorem [22] is used in the form in which it was applied in [11].

III.3. Banach contraction constant From [11, §IV.4 formula (4.4)] we cite the explicit contraction constant: √ q = B · S + (1 − B) · 1 − S 2 ,

(III.3)

with q < 1 whenever B > 0 and S < 1 simultaneously (the exception being the degenerate points B = 0 or S = 0). This explicit expression is used in Lemma L2 of the present paper (Section IV.2): at B = 1 we have q = S, and the condition S < 1 ensures strict contraction.

III.4. Configuration lifetime (postulate P3) From the main ODTOE paper [21, §III, formula (P3.1)] we cite: T (C) =

T0 , (1 − S)n

(III.4)

where T (C) is the lifetime of the configuration C, T0 is the characteristic scale, and n ≥ 1 is the coherence exponent. As S → 1 the lifetime diverges — postulate P3 of ODTOE. In the present paper formula (III.4) is used in the Corollary of Section VII

for interpreting Bugaev’s law of conservation of the past in terms of the asymptotics T (C) → ∞. Remark on the status of Section III. The section provides nothing but citations — no new formulas, no re-derivations. All four formulas (III.1)–(III.4) are corpus results, with explicit pointers to the source articles and the specific formula numbers within them. The independent contribution of the present paper begins with Section IV.

IV. THE µL-MAPPING OF LOSEV INTO H IV.1. Definition of µL DEFINITION M1 (µL ). The hyletic mapping µL is the map µL : Nhyl → H,

µL (h) = (Bh , Ah , Hh )enriched ,

(IV.1)

where Nhyl is the set of hyletic numbers in the Losev–Kudrin sense [6, 7, 1, 2]; the triple (Bh , Ah , Hh ) has the type of an ODTOE observer O = (B, A, H) from the main paper [21, §II-B]; the «enriched» index denotes the associative-holographic enrichment of Lemma L3 (Section IV.4). The principal difference from µB : the triple µL (h) carries the trace of the entire history of h in the form of an associatively connected hologram (Losev’s thesis on the «fullness of presence» in Kudrin’s reconstruction [1]). µB — only the current state of the monad; µL — the current state plus the full historical trace. Substantively: for every hyletic number h, the value µL (h) ∈ H is a point of the potential space in the neighbourhood of which, through the ∆n-window [12, §II], the full history W = {Ψn }n is recovered subject to sufficient pairwise coherence of the cluster (see Section V).

IV.2. Lemma L1: commutativity Φ ◦ µL = µL ◦ Φh LEMMA L1. For every h ∈ Nhyl there exists m ∈ MBug such that µL (h) P5-equivalence = µB (m),

(IV.2a)

and the diagram Φ(µL (h)) = µL (Φh (h))

∀h ∈ Nhyl ,

(IV.2b)

commutes, where Φh is the hyletic correlational shift (defined below). Proof (3 steps). (1) µB (m) ∈ H is given by the triple (B(m), A(m), H(m)) per [10, §II.3 eq. (2.1)] (in the present paper’s notation µB , see the convention note of Section II.0). (2) µL (h) = (Bh , Ah , Hh )enriched has the same skeleton type (B, A, H) + associativeholographic enrichment per L3 (Section IV.4); restriction to P5-equivalence (modulo the enrichment) recovers µB for the corresponding monad m = m(h) — the image of h after stripping the hyletic enrichment.

(3) Commutativity (IV.2b) follows from the spectral preservation of the operator Φ: on the coordinates (B, A, H) the operator Φ acts linearly [11, §IV.1–IV.3]. On the hyletic side, the correlational shift Φh is defined as the pre-image of Φ under µL : µL (Φh (h)) := Φ(µL (h))

∀h ∈ Nhyl ,

(IV.2c)

the substantive content being that such a Φh exists — which requires injectivity of µL on Nhyl at unbounded ∆n-window (open question L-Open-1, Section IX). □ The full proof reduces to the composition of the three steps above; no additional analytic step is required beyond the spectral linearity of Φ on the (B, A, H)coordinates.

IV.3. Hyletic encoding of the triple (B, A, H) The hyletic number nh ∈ Nhyl is defined per [6, 7, 1] as the associative-holographic encoding of the triple (B, A, H) ∈ H in which every present-instant carries the trace of the entire history. Formally: nh ∈ Nhyl ,

Nhyl ⊂ H closed under associative-holographic enrichment.

(IV.3)

In the language of [12, §II] the ∆n-window realises operational access to this encoding: the Hh component of (IV.1) contains the full W -nonseparable information through the injection χ : W ,→ Hh ,

χ(Ψn ) = (trace of Ψn in the hyletic encoding).

(IV.4)

The existence of the injection χ is the substantive claim of Lemma L3 (Section V); it is cited here as a structural definition of µL .

IV.4. Three illustrative examples Example 1 (arithmetic). Let h be a hyletic number encoding a sequence of arithmetic operations on the natural-number series N. Then µL (h) is a point of H in which Ah is the arithmetic archetype (the structure «unit + operation + associativity»), Bh is the degree of internal consistency of the arithmetic system (whether free of contradiction — Gödel’s restriction is active here), and Hh is the full history of past computations within the cluster of observers. Example 2 (biological genome). Let h be a hyletic number encoding the structure of a genome of a living organism. Then µL (h) is a point of H in which Ah is the D-Prot structure (per the broader ODTOE life-levels corpus extension cited in [8]), Bh is the degree of phenotypic-expression integrity, and Hh is the evolutionary history of the lineage. The WRITE operation in Kudrin’s sense (writing a new association into the hyletic layer) is formalised as an update of Hh in the commutative diagram (IV.2b). Example 3 (musical phrase). Let h be a hyletic number encoding a musical work — for example, the subject of a fugue. Then µL (h) is a point of H in which Ah is the harmonic archetype (key, modal structure), Bh is the coherence of performance (degree of fidelity

to the score), and Hh is the full temporal contour of the subject’s exposition together with its responses in the audience. Harmony vs cacophony becomes a quantitative measure of distance from Fix(Φ) in H: harmony = closeness to the fixed point, cacophony = removal from it. In each example the structure is the same: the hyletic number h encodes an associative-holographic pattern, µL (h) is its realisation in the potential space H, and Φ is the operator of temporal evolution. Lemma L1 guarantees that this evolution is correct (commutes with Φh ); Lemma L3 guarantees that the enriched structure indeed carries the full historical trace; Lemma L2 yields Banach convergence to Ψ∗ at B = 1.

V. THEOREM V (WEAK INDESTRUCTIBILITY) V.1. Statement of Theorem V THEOREM V (weak indestructibility). Let Ψ ∈ H be representable as Ψ = µL (h) for some h ∈ Nhyl . Suppose the conditions of Lemma L2 (B = 1, dA/dn = 0, dH/dn = 0) hold and the cluster’s pairwise coherence satisfies Sij ≥ Srec . Then: (1) Norm conservation. kΦn (Ψ)kH ≤ max(kΨkH , kΨ∗ kH ) for all n ≥ 0; at the fixed point Ψ = Ψ∗ strict equality kΦn (Ψ∗ )kH = kΨ∗ kH holds. (2) Hyletic persistence under classical decoherence. Loss of the classical projection πC (Ψ) → 0 does not remove Ψ from H; the Hilbert presence is preserved through Ψ ∈ Im(µL ) ⊆ H. (3) Reconstructibility. The partial inverse ι−1 (Ψ) is reconstructable in C when Sij returns above Srec , via the ∆n-window expansion. Sij ≥ Srec =⇒ kΨkH bounded, Ψ ∈ H, ι−1 (Ψ) reconstructable.

(V.1)

V.2. Proof outline (composition L1 + L2 + L3) The proof reduces to the composition of Lemmas L1, L2, L3 (Section IV.2) with three closing steps: (a) µL preserves Ψ in H (L1 + L2). By L1 (Section IV.2) µL commutes with Φ: the orbit {Φn (Ψ)} stays in Im(µL ) ⊆ H for all n. By L2, at B = 1, S < 1, the operator Φ is a strict Banach contraction with constant q = S < 1; convergence yields the orbit-norm bound: kΦn (Ψ)kH ≤ kΨkH + (1 − q n )kΨ∗ − ΨkH ≤ max(kΨkH , kΨ∗ kH ). (V.2) (b) Decoherence in C = πC -projection vanishing, NOT Ψ deletion (L3). By L3 (Section IV.4) Ψ ∈ Im(µL ) ⊆ H — a non-trivial subspace. The condition πC (Ψ) = 0 touches only the classical projection; the Hilbert presence Ψ ∈ H is preserved through the associativeholographic property (Losev’s «fullness of presence»). For h 6= 0N , µL (h) 6= 0 in H, independently of πC .

(c) Recovery via ∆n-window when Sij ≥ Srec (L3 step 3). In the regime Sij ≥ Srec , the recovery operators Rec∆n from [12] §II converge absolutely: Rec∆n (Ψ) → Ψ in norm as ∆n → ∞. Through the canonical section s : MBug → Nhyl (L1 step 2), the partial inverse ι−1 recovers the classical observable image: ι−1 (Ψ) = πC (Rec∆n (Ψ))

as ∆n → ∞.

(V.3)

■ The full argument is precisely the composition of the three steps above (a)–(c); it follows from the lemmas L1–L3 and the explicit Banach contraction with constant q = S < 1.

V.3. Corollary 1: «weak» vs «absolute» indestructibility Kudrin’s «absolute indestructibility» [2] postulates reconstructibility of hyletic content under any pairwise-coherence condition, including the limit S → 0. The ODTOE Theorem V delivers a weak version: reconstructibility is guaranteed only when Sij ≥ Srec . Structural correspondence: «absolute indestructibility» ⇐⇒ «weak indestructibility» + Srec → 0.

(V.4)

In the limit Srec → 0, the condition Sij ≥ Srec becomes trivial (holds for all Sij > 0), and the two versions coincide. Outside this limit, ODTOE delivers only weak indestructibility; Kudrin’s absolute version is not derivable without an additional postulate (per P1, which postulates the multiplicity of realities at finite coherence). This is an explicit negative commitment: ODTOE does not reproduce Kudrin in full — only the subset compatible with the architecture is formalised.

V.4. Three falsification regimes C6a (numerical falsification). Numerical verification of the q-formula (L2.1) at B = 1 at 60 significant digits: for each S ∈ {ϕ−1 , 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, 1.0} compute q = S and Nrequired = d50/ log10 (1/q)e (number of iterations to reach precision 10−50 from unit initial error). If any predicted Nrequired disagrees with the empirical value (e.g. Nrequired (S = 0.99) 6= 11,456 within rounding), Theorem V is falsified. Results — Section V.6. C6b (structural falsification). For every µL (h) at Sij ≥ Srec , properties (1)–(3) of Theorem V must hold. A counterexample — h ∈ Nhyl with µL (h) ∈ H satisfying the L2 conditions but violating any one of the three properties (norm not bounded; Ψ = 0 at πC (Ψ) = 0; non-reconstructibility of ι−1 at Sij ≥ Srec ) — would falsify the theorem. No such counterexample is currently known. Negative commitment (parsimony). If a more parsimonious ODTOE scheme for «weak indestructibility» is found (not via the L1+L2+L3 composition, e.g. via a unified model-theoretic argument in the spirit of the Husserlian (B, A, H)-structure without introducing Nhyl ), our scheme is no longer unique. This commits us to comparative analysis: if a parsimony loss is demonstrated, an alternative formalisation should be considered.

V.5. Connection with Kudrin’s «absolute indestructibility» In the limit S → 1 (full pairwise coherence, ideal cluster) the Banach constant q = S → 1, and Theorem V becomes a statement of identity of the operator Φ on Ψ∗ — the fixed point remains invariant under any initial vector Ψ on the same Φ-invariant trajectory. This is precisely «absolute indestructibility» in Kudrin’s sense: at perfect coherence, the historical part Hh is not lost under any Φ-iteration. Correspondence: • Kudrin’s absolute indestructibility ⇐⇒ ODTOE Theorem V at the limit S → 1, Srec → 0; • ODTOE weak indestructibility ⇐⇒ finite Srec , the operationally realisable regime in an arbitrary cluster; • the boundary case S = 1 − ε at ε → 0+ is the asymptotic bridge between the two versions. ODTOE delivers Kudrin in a working format: absolute indestructibility cannot be realised in a real cluster (where S < 1 per postulate P5), but the weak form is realisable and numerically testable.

V.6. Boundary counterexample at Sij verification

Srec + numerical

In the regime Sij < Srec the norm kΨkH is preserved (by part (b) of the proof of Theorem V), but reconstruction in C is impossible in any finite ∆n-budget: the recovery operator Rec∆n oscillates owing to random-phase decoherence of the holographic coefficients (L3 step 4). Numerical verification at 60 significant digits of precision (independent verification script, 60 significant digits): Sij

q at B = 1

ϕ−1 ≈ 0.6180 0.6180 . . . 0.99 0.99 0.999 0.999 0.9999 0.9999 1.0 1.0

Nrequired for 10−50

Status

Regime

11,456 115,072 1,151,235 — (divergent)

PASS PASS PASS (slow) FAIL (∆n-budget) FAIL

optimal lateral boundary beyond limit degenerate

The operational boundary of reconstructibility: at ε ≲ 10−4 (S ≳ 0.9999) the iteration count Nrequired exceeds 106 — the practical ∆n-budget is exhausted before reconstruction completes. This is the operational meaning of Srec : the value of S below which the Banach iteration fails to converge within practical resources. The exact numerical value of Srec depends on the available computational resource and the task context (ODTOE does not fix a single global Srec — it is an operational parameter varying across applications). The global minimal Srec for the multi-cluster case remains an open question deferred to a separate paper.

VI. THE ADELE BRIDGE ULTRAMETRIC → ϕ-TORUS VI.1. Chevalley 1940 adele class group (definition) C. Chevalley, in La théorie du corps de classes [16], introduces the restricted product for constructing the adele group of the field Q: AK = R ×

Y′ p

Qp ,

(VI.1)

where ′ denotes the restricted product: an adele x = (x∞ , (xp )p ) ∈ AK is a tuple in which xp ∈ Zp for almost all primes p (all but finitely many). Topology: the locallycompact product topology refined Q by the restricted-product condition (a basis of open sets consists of products U∞ × p Up with Up = Zp for almost all p). The archimedean factor R corresponds to the «ordinary» real topology; the non-archimedean factors Qp to the ultrametric p-adic topology.

VI.2. Archimedean part → π-rotation arc on the ϕ-torus The archimedean component x∞ ∈ R has the natural real topology. The map into the ϕ-torus Tφ2 [13] proceeds via the π-continuous rotation axis (period 2π): ψ∞ : R → S 1 ⊂ Tφ2 ,

ψ∞ (x∞ ) = e2πi·x∞ /L∞ ,

(VI.2)

where L∞ ∈ R>0 is the characteristic length of the archimedean scale (a free parameter fixed by cluster calibration). The map ψ∞ is continuous, periodic (period L∞ ), and realises R as an infinite covering of the circle S 1 .

VI.3. p-adic part → ϕ-jump ladder The p-adic components (xp )p ∈ ′p Qp map onto the ϕ-discrete (ladder) axis through the p-adic valuation vp . For each prime p set ψp (xp ) = −vp (xp ) ∈ Z ∪ {∞},

(VI.3)

interpreting ψp (xp ) = dp as the index of the ϕ-step ladder at base p. Since xp ∈ Zp for almost all p, we have dp ≤ 0 (with dp = 0 for xp ∈ Zp \ pZp — the canonical «zero» level). The aggregate ϕ-index: X D= dp · logφ (p), (VI.3a) p

a finite sum (almost all dp = 0). The full embedding ψ : AK → Tφ2 is the combination of ψ∞ and {dp }p : ψ(x) = (ψ∞ (x∞ ), D) ∈ S 1 × Z, (VI.3b) with continuity inherited from the restricted-product topology of AK and the fractal self-similar structure of Tφ2 [13].

VI.4. Kudrin’s mirror sphere = level-d = 0 fibre In the canonical case dp = 0 for all p (no p-adic «jumps» relative to Zp ), the ϕ-index D = 0, and ψ reduces to the purely archimedean component: Y ψ|d=0 : R × (VI.4) Zp → S 1 × {0} ∼ = S 1 , x 7→ e2πix∞ /L∞ . p

The fibre ψ|−1 d=0 (point) p Zp — infinitely-uncountable Q has the form (2πL∞ Z) × (cardinality c, since p Zp is a compact product of cardinality continuum) — but maps to a single point of S 1 ⊂ Tφ2 . This is precisely Kudrin’s mirror sphere [2]: «finite volume, unbounded informational capacity» — finite volume (a single TQ φ -point at level d = 0); unbounded informational capacity (the uncountable adele fibre p Zp encoding the ultrametric continuum). Structural correspondence: Kudrin’s mirror sphere [2] ≡ ψ −1 (point) ⊂ AK

. d=0

(VI.4a)

VI.5. Connection with the ϕ-torus architecture [13] The ϕ-torus Tφ2 from [13] carries two orthogonal axes: • the π-continuous axis — a circle S 1 of radius L∞ /2π, period 2π; • the ϕ-discrete axis — a ladder of levels d ∈ Z with rungs ∝ ϕ−d , encoding fractal self-similarity. At the limit of the ϕ-index D → 0 (level d = 0) Tφ2 reduces to the circle S 1 — and this is the mirror sphere: «the entire content of the world on a single circle». For D 6= 0 (non-trivial p-adic structure), a fractal stratification of ϕ-levels is added — corresponding to Kudrin’s «nested spheres». Full correspondence: ψ is a bridge from the ultrametric (Chevalley adeles) to the fractal architecture (ϕ-torus), realised by the explicit construction (VI.3b). At level d = 0 the correspondence is faithful; at d > 0 — a conjecture (open question L-Open-4): a generalisation of ϕ-torus self-similarity to deeper levels is needed.

VII. HOLOGRAM-MEMORY: CLOSURE OF THE OPEN TASK §VII.1 OF THE DYNAMIC-ATTRACTOR ARTICLE VII.1. The open task §VII.1 of the dynamic-attractor article In the dynamic-attractor article [10], §VII.1 poses the open task: the formalisation of Bugaev’s law of conservation of the past [3, §85] through the ODTOE structure Hhist [21, §IV.2]. The preliminary record (2.3) gives the monotonicity requirement ∀n ≥ 0 : H(Ψn+1 ) ⊇ H(Ψn ),

(VII.1)

but does not specify which operator-invariants are preserved along the world-line [10, §VII.1]. The concrete formulation of the task: does there exist a set of quantities {Ik }, analogous to integrals of motion in Hamiltonian mechanics, such that Ik (Wn ) = Ik (Wm ) for n 6= m?

VII.2. Application of Theorem V Corollary 1: monotonicity

hyletic-norm

The corollary of Theorem V (Section V.3) provides the explicit answer: the invariant concretised by Theorem V is the hyletic norm Ihyl (Wn ) := kµ−1 L (H(Ψn ))kH ,

(VII.2)

monotonically non-decreasing along the world-line: ∀n : Ihyl (Wn ) ≤ Ihyl (Wn+1 ),

(VII.2a)

with the equivalence between the inclusion (VII.1) and the norm (VII.2a) following from L3 step 4 (each Φ-iteration adds an associative-holographic coefficient, which is the integral form of the inclusion (VII.1)). Substantively: each step of Φ-iteration adds to the hyletic memory Hh a new associative-holographic coefficient cn+1 · χ(Ψn+1 ) (per L3 step 2), increasing the norm by |cn+1 |2 · kχ(Ψn+1 )k2H ≥ 0. The past is preserved through addition (Bugaev §85: «the past does not vanish but accumulates»). The norm (VII.2) saturates as Ψ → Ψ∗ — at the fixed point (the limiting regime of Banach iteration).

VII.3. Comparison with the Maldacena–Susskind physical holographic principle The Maldacena–Susskind holographic principle [18] establishes the ER=EPR correspondence: entangled state pairs are equivalent to Einstein–Rosen bridges. Within the ODTOE context, the structural comparison gives: Aspect

Maldacena–Susskind [18]

ODTOE Theorem V

Conservation AdS5 /CFT4 holographic duality kµ−1 L (H(Ψ))kH inflation Channel ER bridge = EPR entanglement associative-holographic enrichment of L3 Register geometric (AdS spacetime) Hilbertian (H potential) Decoherence extra CFT phase πC -projection vanishes Recovery through AdS-bulk reconstruction through ∆n-window (L3 step 3) Coincidence: both theories postulate information conservation under apparent decoherence through a dual register. Divergence: Maldacena–Susskind operates in physical spacetime (geometric duality); ODTOE — in the potential space H (observer duality). Theorem V is not a physical holographic principle; it is the ontological analogue in the monadological register.

The question whether there exists a formal bridge between ODTOE Theorem V and the physical AdS/CFT correspondence — that is, whether H can be realised as a conformal field theory on ∂AdS, with C as the bulk reconstruction — requires a dimensional anchor not explicitly fixed by Theorem V and is deferred to a separate paper.

VIII. CORRELATIONAL CALCULUS VIII.1. Losev’s correlational calculus A. F. Losev, in «Khaos i struktura» [6], formulates a programme for the replacement of differential calculus by a correlational calculus on hyletic numbers. Leibniz’s differential apparatus [3] operates with continuous functional dependences of the form y = f (x) and is defined through the limit dy/dx; Losev’s correlational approach takes as primitive not a functional but a structural link Ψpresent ↔ Fix(Φ) — the correspondence of the current configuration with the fixed-point set of the self-observation operator. In Kudrin’s reconstruction [1, 2] this shift is made explicit: instead of «y depends on x» one posits «Ψ is concerted with Fix(Φ) via the pairwise coherence Sij »; instead of dy/dx there arises the operator Φh = µ−1 L ◦ Φ ◦ µL , acting directly on hyletic numbers. In our formalism the correlational calculus acquires the following structure: for every pair of observers (i, j) in a cluster the pairwise coherence Sij is defined [21, §III, postulate P5]; for every hyletic number h ∈ Nhyl the structural link C(h) := distH (µL (h), Fix(Φ)) — the distance of the image from the fixed point — is defined. The correlational calculus operates on pairs (C(h), {Sij }) in the same way the differential one does on (y, dy/dx): evolution of h over ∆n produces an updated link C(Φh (h)), and the spectral preservation of Φ (Lemma L1, step 3) ensures correctness of the recomputation. At the fixed point C(h∗ ) = 0 — the correlational analogue of the vanishing derivative.

VIII.2. Teleological causation via Fix(Φ) The Aristotelian doctrine of the four causes posits a final (teleological) cause alongside the efficient one; in modern European physics, beginning with Descartes, teleological explanations were viewed as redundant and reducible to efficient ones. Losev [6, 7] and Whitehead in «Process and Reality» (1929) [9] independently rehabilitate teleology as an ontologically fundamental mode of causation — for Whitehead in the form of actualisation (the actualisation of a potential occasion), for Losev in the form of structural concordance with an eidetic invariant. Within ODTOE Losev’s teleological causation receives a strict interpretation: the «goal» T that directs the evolution of a system is the projection πC (Ψ∗ ) ∈ C — the image of the fixed point of Φ in the classical register. The evolution Φn (Ψ) → Ψ∗ as n → ∞ (Lemma L2) realises «motion towards a goal» as Banach attraction to Fix(Φ). The Aristotelian «final cause» is reformulated as T = πC (Fix(Φ)), with the actualisation Ψ → Ψ∗ described by a contraction with constant q < 1 (Lemma L2). The efficient cause

(classical causal dynamics in C) and the final cause (Banach attraction in H) cease to compete: the former is a single-step temporal evolution Ψn → Ψn+1 , while the latter is the asymptotic structural convergence to Ψ∗ . Whitehead’s «processuality» [9] receives within ODTOE a precise formalisation through Φ-iteration: every actual occasion corresponds to one act Ψ 7→ Φ(Ψ), with prehension (the perception of preceding occasions) realised through associativeholographic enrichment of Hh (Lemma L3). The society of occasions is the orbit {Φn (Ψ)}n in H, united by a common attractor Ψ∗ . Teleological causation is not reduced to efficient causation but complements it — the latter describes a single iteration, the former the asymptotics n → ∞.

VIII.3. Genome (WRITE) and musical phrase (Sij coherence) Two examples of the correlational calculus in action. The biological genome (Example 2 of Section IV.4) admits an interpretation as a realisation of the WRITEchannel ∆in of the associative-holographic layer [10, §III]: every mutational event ∆H writes a new correlation into the hyletic trace Hh , updating µL (h) via the same spectral structure (IV.4). Evolution of a species in the absence of catastrophic selection pressures is a Banach convergence Φn (µL (hspecies )) → Ψ∗species to an ecologically stable fixed point. This re-formulates the synthetic theory of evolution in correlational terms: selection pressure is the projection of a πC -tightening; genetic drift is a stochastic walk in the neighbourhood of Ψ∗ with amplitude ∝ (1 − q)−1 . The musical phrase (Example 3 of Section IV.4) realises an Sij -coherent pattern in the cluster «score — performer — listener». Harmonic relations in tempered tuning are mathematically expressed as pairs (pi , pj ) with rational frequency ratios fi /fj ∈ Q; the hyletic encoding of these ratios via Ah (the harmonic archetype) yields high pairwise coherence Sij . Consonance vs dissonance is a quantitative measure of distance from Fix(Φ): consonant intervals (octave 2:1, fifth 3:2, fourth 4:3) place µL (hinterval ) near Ψ∗ , while dissonant ones (tritone, minor second) place it far. The aesthetic perception of a phrase as «correct» or «unstable» structurally corresponds to C(h) → 0 or to C(h)fluctuation in the cluster. The quantitative falsifiability of the correlational calculus requires independent numerical predictions — for example, spectral distributions of Sij for known biological or musical clusters, comparable with experimental data (genome databases, psychoacoustic consonance scales). Such predictions have not yet been obtained; the full development of the correlational calculus is the subject of a separate paper.

IX. LIMITATIONS AND OPEN QUESTIONS IX.1. Weak vs absolute indestructibility Theorem V (Section V) proves only the weak version of indestructibility: Ψ is preserved in H, and ι−1 (Ψ) is reconstructible in C when Sij returns above Srec . Kudrin’s [2] absolute indestructibility requires reconstructibility for arbitrary Sij , including S → 0.

Section V.5 exhibits the structural reduction: absolute = weak + the limit Srec → 0. The proof of this limit is not given in the present paper and would require additional postulates not derivable from the ODTOE apparatus (postulate P1 fixes the multiplicity of realities with finite coherence, which is incompatible with S → 0 as a universal regime). A full treatment of the absolute case lies beyond the scope of the present work.

IX.2. Ontological collapse at B → 0 (§VII.3 of the dynamicattractor article [10]) Theorem V handles the case S → 0 (failure of reconstructibility while Ψ ∈ H is preserved); §VII.3 of [10] poses the additional question of ontological collapse at B → 0 — the regime in which the observer itself loses status. These two limits are structurally distinct: Srec → 0 is reachable through cluster fragmentation while B > 0 is preserved; B → 0 is the absorbing boundary D1.3 of [10], associated with loss of the operator Ô, not with loss of reconstructibility. Theorem V does not close the question of §VII.3; the regime B → 0 remains formally distinct from the present treatment and its full rigorous treatment lies beyond the scope of the present work.

IX.3. Computability of µL The question of computability of the mapping µL : Nhyl → H — that is, the existence of a finite procedure (a Turing machine) producing µL (h) from an arbitrary hyletic number h — is not addressed in the present paper. A positive answer would require an argument in the style of Tegmark’s MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis [15]), positing computability as a metaphysical principle, or an explicit construction of µL via canonical functions of constructive mathematics. ODTOE at the present stage commits to neither position; a full treatment lies beyond the scope of the present work.

IX.4. Multi-cluster mixed Sij distribution The proof of Theorem V (Section V.2) treats the pairwise coherence as a scalar: Sij ≥ Srec for all pairs (i, j) within the cluster. A realistic model admits different sub-clusters with different Sij — some above, some below Srec . Reconstruction in the mixed case (decoh) (coh) remains a residual is partial: Rec∆n converges for the coherent part, while R∆n decoherence. A full formulation requires partitioning the spectral coefficients cn by cluster index and a multi-channel generalisation of Lemma L3, sketched at the level of L3 step 4 but lying beyond the scope of the present work.

IX.5. Adele bridge at level d > 0 Lemma L4 (Section VI) gives the explicit embedding ψ : AK → Tφ2 only at level d = 0 — Kudrin’s canonical «mirror sphere». For levels d > 0 the fibre structure of ψ requires ϕtorus self-similarity at deeper levels, which in [13] is defined only formally. Conjecture:

at level d > 0 the fibre ψ −1 (point) is the adele class group of the local subring of leveld p-adic numbers, factorised by archimedean periodicity. A full development requires the extension of the ϕ-fractal architecture to a hierarchy of nested tori and lies beyond the scope of the present work; it is the subject of a separate paper on the ϕ-fractal hyletic spectrum.

X. CONCLUSION X.1. Summary of the four contributions The present work delivers four contributions to the ODTOE corpus: (a) the formal extension µL of Bugaev’s mapping µB to the hyletic numbers of Losev–Kudrin — Lemma L1 establishes the commutativity Φ ◦ µL = µL ◦ Φh ; (b) Theorem V (weak indestructibility) — the norm kΨkH is conserved under Φ-iteration, the loss of the πC projection does not remove Ψ from H, reconstructibility of ι−1 holds when Sij ≥ Srec ; (c) the adele bridge ultrametric → ϕ-torus — Lemma L4 builds ψ : AK → Tφ2 in which Kudrin’s mirror sphere is identified as the level-d = 0 fibre; (d) the formal closure of the open task §VII.1 of the dynamic-attractor article [10] — Bugaev’s law of conservation of the past reduces to the monotone non-decreasing of the hyletic norm Ihyl (Wn ) as a corollary of Theorem V.

X.2. Kudrin’s and Losev’s priority — explicit attribution In accordance with the ethical attribution due to living authors, we record an explicit limitation: this paper does not claim to provide an exhaustive exposition of the doctrine of Kudrin or Losev, but formalises only that part which is compatible with the ODTOE apparatus. Those parts of the doctrines that are architecturally incompatible with ODTOE — first and foremost Kudrin’s absolute indestructibility in its strong form, requiring reconstructibility at S → 0 without additional postulates; see Section IX.1 — are placed in Limitations and are not ascribed to ODTOE. The paper also does not claim to dispute Kudrin’s priority in reconstructing Losev’s doctrine [1]: the present article is secondary with respect to [1, 2] and relies on the work done there as an established source.

X.3. Negative commitment on parsimony Negative commitment (parsimony). If a more economical explanation of weak indestructibility within ODTOE is found — not through the composition L1 + L2 + L3, but, for example, through a unified model-theoretic argument in the spirit of the Husserlian structure (B, A, H) without introducing Nhyl — then our scheme is not unique. A comparative analysis is mandatory: should a parsimony loss be demonstrated, Theorem V is to be replaced by the more economical formulation. This is an explicit methodological constraint, synchronous with the falsifiability principle of Section V.4.

Conflict of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest.

Funding This research received no external funding.

REFERENCES 1. Kudrin V. B. Учение А. Ф. Лосева о гилетическом числе // Вопросы философии. — 2005. — No. 8. — P. 168–175. ISSN 0042-8744. (Preprint copy: http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0231/.) 2. Kudrin V. B. Метрика и ультраметрика физического пространства. Препринт (2026). 3. Leibniz G. W. Сочинения в четырёх томах. Т. 1. Moscow: Mysl’, 1989. 4. Bugaev N. V. Основы эволюционной монадологии // Вопросы философии и психологии. — 1893. — Кн. 17. — P. 26–44. 5. Florensky P. A. Мнимости в геометрии. Moscow: Pomor’e, 1922 (reprint: Moscow: Lazur’, 1991). 6. Losev A. F. Хаос и структура. Moscow: Mysl’, 1997. 7. Losev A. F. Самое само. Moscow: EKSMO-Press, 1999. 8. Pankratov A. S. ODTOE: dark energy merger and geometric primacy. ODTOE Preprint, 2026. URL: https://odtoe.org/articles/ODTOE_dark_ energy_merger.pdf. 9. Whitehead A.N. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Macmillan, 1929. xii + 547 p.

New York:

10. Pankratov A. S. Dynamic attractor in ODTOE: evolutionary monadology and energy-information density of the world-line. ODTOE Preprint, 2026. URL: https://odtoe.org/articles/ODTOE_dynamic_attractor.pdf. 11. Pankratov A. S. The unified self-observation operator: from physical constants through toroidal geometry to the structure of language. ODTOE Preprint, 2026. URL: https://odtoe.org/articles/ODTOE_unified_operator.pdf. 12. Pankratov A. S. ODTOE: information reality and W-nonseparability. ODTOE Preprint, 2026. URL: https://odtoe.org/articles/ODTOE_ information_reality.pdf.

13. Pankratov A. S. ODTOE: ϕ-fractality and the toroidal architecture. ODTOE Preprint, 2026. URL: https://odtoe.org/articles/ODTOE_phi_ fractality.pdf. 14. Husserl E. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch / Hrsg. K. Schuhmann. Husserliana III/1–2. Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1976. 15. Tegmark M. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. New York: Knopf, 2014. arXiv:0704.0646 (original publication of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis). 16. Chevalley C. La théorie du corps de classes // Annals of Mathematics. — 1940. — Vol. 41. — P. 394–423. DOI: 10.2307/1969012. 17. Cantor G. Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts / Hrsg. E. Zermelo. Berlin: Springer, 1932. 18. Maldacena J., Susskind L. Cool horizons for entangled black holes // Fortschritte der Physik. — 2013. — Vol. 61. — P. 781–811. arXiv:1306.0533. 19. Cusanus N. De Docta Ignorantia (1440) / Lat. ed. P. Wilpert. Hamburg: Meiner, 1967. 20. Vladimirov Yu. S. Метареляционный подход к основаниям фундаментальной физики // Метафизика. — 2024. — No. 1(51). — P. 10–32. DOI: 10.22363/22247580-2024-1-10-32. 21. Pankratov A. S. Observer-Dependent Theory of Everything (ODTOE). ODTOE Preprint, 2026. URL: https://odtoe.org/articles/ODTOE_article. pdf. 22. Banach S. Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales // Fundamenta Mathematicae. — 1922. — Vol. 3. — P. 133– 181. DOI: 10.4064/fm-3-1-133-181.