• Note XVII • Site Density Profile

Azimuthal Imbalance, Not Density,
Predicts Probe Failure

The n=31 quasicrystal has an approximately uniform radial site density (oscillating ±33% around a plateau). Sites-per-shell does not distinguish the 11 graph-confirmed ring-probe detections from the 16 ring-probe artefacts. Azimuthal imbalance — the ratio of the widest angular gap to the mean gap — does.

n=31 quasicrystal, 521 sites 11 confirmed, 16 artefacts from Notes XIII–XV shell half-width dr=0.326

Key Finding

An imbalance threshold of $\mathcal{I} = 2.0$ correctly classifies 14 of 16 ring-probe artefacts ($\mathcal{I} \ge 2.0$) while retaining all 11 confirmed detections, with one borderline case (r=9.1, $\mathcal{I}=2.07$, confirmed). The two artefacts below threshold (r=3.0, 3.1, $\mathcal{I}=1.20$) fail on graph-coverage rather than azimuthal clustering.

The r=[3,4) enrichment dip seen in Note XVI (3π/2 mode weight 5% below uniform) is confirmed here as a genuine eigenfunction node — site density in that bin is 86% of the r=[4,5) reference, near-normal, so the suppression cannot be attributed to fewer sites.

Radial Site Density — n=31 Quasicrystal
521 Total accepted sites
1.27 Plateau density (sites/unit area)
±33% Peak density oscillation
Uniform r=[3,4) vs r=[4,5) ratio = 0.857

Density Definition

For each 1-unit radial bin $[r_{\text{lo}}, r_{\text{hi}})$, the site density is $\rho = N_{\text{sites}} / \pi(r_{\text{hi}}^2 - r_{\text{lo}}^2)$. Relative density $\hat\rho = \rho / \rho_{\text{ref}}$ uses the r=[4,5) bin as reference ($\rho_{\text{ref}} = 4/\pi \approx 1.273$ sites/unit area).

The n=31 projection generates alternating dense and sparse shells. This is a structural property of the quasicrystal, not a bias. The oscillation amplitude is modest: all bins in r=[1,10) have $\hat\rho \in [0.80, 1.33]$ except the r=[7,8) overdense ring ($\hat\rho = 1.33$, driven by the outer φ² cascade clusters).

Relative site density per 1-unit bin  •  normal   dense   sparse

Azimuthal Imbalance

Definition

For a shell of $N$ sites, sort the sites by azimuthal angle $\varphi_i = \text{atan2}(y_i, x_i)$. Compute the $N$ angular gaps $\Delta\varphi_k = \varphi_{k+1} - \varphi_k$ (mod $2\pi$), with the last gap wrapping back to the first site. Define:

$$\mathcal{I} = \frac{\max_k \Delta\varphi_k}{2\pi / N}$$

$\mathcal{I} = 1$ means all sites are uniformly spaced. $\mathcal{I} \gg 1$ means at least one large arc is unoccupied, which causes the ring-winding probe to miscount winding steps (a single large $\Delta\varphi$ step can be wrapped to $\pm\pi$ regardless of the true angular traversal).

Imbalance spectrum — confirmed (green) vs artefact (red)
$\mathcal{I}=1$ (uniform) ← threshold $\mathcal{I}=2.0$ → $\mathcal{I}=3.2$
Same-Density, Different Outcome — Three Witness Pairs

These bins contain both a graph-confirmed detection and a ring-probe artefact at similar site density. Within each bin, azimuthal imbalance separates the two.

Bin r = [4.0, 4.5)
r = 4.0  artefact N=32   ℑ=3.14
r = 4.1  artefact N=32   ℑ=3.14
r = 4.4  confirmed N=24   ℑ=1.41

Artefacts have more sites (N=32 vs 24) yet fail. Density not predictive; imbalance is.

Bin r = [9.0, 9.5)
r = 9.0  artefact N=64   ℑ=2.73
r = 9.1  confirmed N=68   ℑ=2.07
r = 9.2  artefact N=80   ℑ=2.13

r=9.1 confirmed sits between two artefacts in the same density shell. r=9.2 is the hardest case (ℑ=2.13, borderline).

Bin r = [3.0, 3.5)
r = 3.0  artefact N=12   ℑ=1.20
r = 3.1  artefact N=12   ℑ=1.20
r = 3.2  confirmed N=20   ℑ=1.71

r=3.0/3.1 artefacts have low imbalance (ℑ=1.20) — they fail the graph-traversal on coverage (disconnected subgraph), not clustering. The second failure mode.

Interpretation

Two mechanisms produce ring-probe artefacts:

1. Azimuthal clustering ℑ ≥ 2.0
2. Graph disconnection coverage < 60%

Site count is neither necessary nor sufficient. The n=31 density varies slowly; the quasicrystal geometry, not the projection density, governs which shells form connected rings vs arc clusters.


Note XVI Connection — r=[3,4) Enrichment Dip

r=[3,4) is an Eigenfunction Node, Not a Density Artifact

Note XVI reported that the 3π/2 Wilson branch-cut mode achieves enrichment $E = 0.954$ at r=[3,4) — the only bin below the uniform baseline in the r=[1,6) range. A naive explanation would be: fewer sites in that bin, so less mode weight.

The density profile rules this out. The r=[3,4) bin contains 24 sites at relative density $\hat\rho = 0.857$ (only 14% below the r=[4,5) reference), while the r=[2,3) bin — which has the highest enrichment ratio of any bin ($E=5.3\times$ per site) — has only 16 sites at $\hat\rho = 0.800$. If density drove enrichment, the r=[2,3) bin would have less enrichment than r=[3,4), not 5× more.

The dip at r=[3,4) is a genuine zero of the eigenfunction between the near-field lobe ($r < 3$, branch-cut flux channelled through the Delaunay core) and the intermediate distribution ($r \approx 4$–5, Yukawa tail). Both lanes (ring probe and operator) see a structural break at this scale.


Full Imbalance Table — All 27 Probe Sites
r N sites Classification Max gap Imbalance ℑ Distribution

Open Questions for Note XVIII