\documentclass[11pt]{article}
% Addendum 368 (extends Paper 22; follows 367). Is the edge-layer back-pressure physical?
% Author: Leon Fernando Vlegels. Text CC BY 4.0.
% Verifier: verify_P368.py (9/9 pass).
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

\title{Addendum 368: Is the Edge-Layer Back-Pressure Physical?\\
\large The case that the discovered singularities are artifacts of the\\
Newtonian idealization --- and the wall it does not cross\\[0.3em]
\normalsize (Addendum to Paper 22; follows 367)}
\author{L\'eon Fernando Vlegels}
\date{2026-06-18}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
Addendum~367 showed the Xavier--Stokes $1/\pi$ strain back-pressure defeats the entire discovered
unstable-singularity hierarchy (arXiv:2509.14185) and isolated the one open question: is the
edge-layer $\psi$-coupling \emph{physically present} in real fluids? This addendum pushes on it. The
case for physicality has three legs, and is stronger than ``plausible'': the coupling is \emph{forced},
not added. \textbf{(L1) Geometric coupling.} The three-layer decomposition
$\alpha^{-1}=4\pi^3+\pi^2+\pi$ (bulk, boundary, edge) fixes the Xavier--Stokes coupling
$f_e/f_b=\text{edge}/\text{boundary}=\pi/\pi^2=1/\pi$ --- no free parameter. \textbf{(L2)
Non-separability.} The edge term is the non-separable third term of the \emph{same} decomposition that
gives the corpus's successful $\alpha$ (Paper~36, $137.035999$ to $0.5$ ppb, and through it the rest);
dropping it leaves $4\pi^3+\pi^2=133.89$, off by $2.3\%$. One cannot keep the bulk/boundary physics and
discard the edge --- it is one object, so on the corpus ontology the back-pressure is forced.
\textbf{(L3) Microscopic cutoff.} $\nu_{\mathrm{eff}}=\nu(1+\psi/\pi)$ activates at $\psi/\pi\sim1$,
$|S|^2\sim\pi/(\beta\tau)$, the strain scale where the edge (sub-continuum) layer responds --- i.e.\
where the Newtonian continuum model stops being valid. On this reading, real fluids never blow up
because they reach the edge-layer cutoff first, and the discovered singularities are artifacts of
pushing the Newtonian idealization past its domain of validity, with \emph{no} fitted parameter.
\textbf{The wall.} This is a claim about real fluids versus the idealization. The Millennium problem
concerns the idealized constant-$\nu$ Newtonian equation \emph{itself}; Xavier--Stokes is a different
(strain-dependent-viscosity) equation. So the argument recasts the singularities as artifacts of the
idealization --- a defensible physical stance --- but does \emph{not} resolve the mathematical
Millennium problem, and it rests on the corpus three-layer ontology being physically real. All claims
pinned by \texttt{verify\_P368.py} (9/9).
\end{abstract}

\section{The case: the back-pressure is forced, not added}
\label{sec:case}

\begin{proposition}[L1: the coupling is geometric]
\label{prop:L1}
In the three-layer decomposition $\alpha^{-1}=4\pi^3+\pi^2+\pi$ the layers are bulk $=4\pi^3$
($90.5\%$), boundary $=\pi^2$ ($7.2\%$), edge $=\pi$ ($2.3\%$). Paper~22's coupling is the
edge-to-boundary ratio $f_e/f_b=\pi/\pi^2=1/\pi$. It is fixed by the geometry, with no free parameter to
tune.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proposition}[L2: the edge layer is non-separable]
\label{prop:L2}
The edge term $\pi$ is the third term of the \emph{same} sum that yields $\alpha^{-1}=137.036$
(Paper~36, to $0.5$ parts per billion). Removing it gives $4\pi^3+\pi^2=133.89$, wrong by $2.3\%$.
Since the bulk and boundary layers carry the corpus's successful physics and are inseparable from the
edge in this one decomposition, one cannot adopt the corpus ontology, keep its physics, and discard the
edge layer. On that ontology the edge-layer strain response is therefore \emph{forced}, not an optional
addition.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}[L3: the onset is a microscopic cutoff]
\label{rmk:L3}
The back-pressure $\nu_{\mathrm{eff}}=\nu(1+\psi/\pi)$, with $\psi\sim\beta\tau|S|^2$, activates where
$\psi/\pi\sim1$, i.e.\ $|S|^2\sim\pi/(\beta\tau)$ for a relaxation time $\tau$. This is a microscopic
strain scale --- the scale at which the edge (sub-continuum) layer responds, which is precisely where
the Newtonian continuum description stops being valid. The geometric coupling sets the strength; the
relaxation time sets the scale.
\end{remark}

\begin{corollary}[The singularities as artifacts]
\label{cor:artifacts}
If the edge layer is physical (Propositions~\ref{prop:L1}--\ref{prop:L2}, Remark~\ref{rmk:L3}), real
fluids carry the strain back-pressure necessarily, reach the edge-layer cutoff before any blow-up
(Addendum~367: the $G^4/\ell^2$ dissipation outruns the $G^3$ stretching), and never develop a
singularity. The discovered unstable singularities are then artifacts of dropping a layer the corpus
says is always present --- a parameter-free physical position.
\end{corollary}

\section{The wall it does not cross}
\label{sec:wall}

\begin{remark}[Real fluids versus the idealization, not a Millennium resolution]
\label{rmk:wall}
The Millennium Prize problem is a statement about the idealized incompressible Navier--Stokes equation
with \emph{constant} viscosity $\nu$ --- that equation, as written. Xavier--Stokes is a different
equation (strain-dependent $\nu_{\mathrm{eff}}$). Arguing the edge layer is physical therefore makes the
discovered singularities artifacts of pushing the \emph{Newtonian idealization} past its domain of
validity; it does not show the idealized constant-$\nu$ equation is regular. So the honest ceiling of
this push is ``the singularities are artifacts of the idealization,'' not ``Navier--Stokes is
resolved.'' Moreover the whole case rests on the corpus three-layer ontology being physically real --- the
corpus's grand bet, not independently established --- and the match of the onset $|S|^2\sim\pi/(\beta\tau)$
to the actual continuum-breakdown scale (Knudsen $\sim1$) is not checked here.
\end{remark}

\section*{Status}
The push strengthens the corpus position from ``a regularization that happens to defeat the discovered
singularities'' to ``a \emph{forced}, parameter-free, physically-motivated back-pressure.'' The coupling
$1/\pi$ is the geometric edge/boundary ratio with no free parameter (Proposition~\ref{prop:L1}); the edge
layer is the non-separable third term of the same $\alpha^{-1}=4\pi^3+\pi^2+\pi$ that gives the corpus's
successful $\alpha$, so on the corpus ontology it cannot be dropped (Proposition~\ref{prop:L2}); and the
back-pressure activates at a microscopic strain cutoff (Remark~\ref{rmk:L3}). On that ontology the
discovered unstable singularities are artifacts of the Newtonian idealization, with no fitted parameter
(Corollary~\ref{cor:artifacts}). \textbf{The honest ceiling}, stated plainly: this is a claim about real
fluids versus the idealization, and it does \emph{not} resolve the mathematical Millennium problem (the
idealized constant-$\nu$ equation itself, a different equation from Xavier--Stokes); it rests on the
corpus three-layer ontology being physically real; and the onset-vs-continuum-cutoff match is unchecked
(Remark~\ref{rmk:wall}). So the corpus's strongest defensible claim against arXiv:2509.14185 is: the
back-pressure is forced and parameter-free, and \emph{if} the three-layer ontology is physical, the
discovered singularities are idealization artifacts --- a sharp, falsifiable position, short of a
Millennium resolution. No published number changes. Verifier: \texttt{verify\_P368.py}, 9/9 pass.

\paragraph{What would cross the wall.}
Two independent things: (i) an experimental or first-principles demonstration that the edge-layer
strain response is present in real fluids (e.g.\ the onset $|S|^2\sim\pi/(\beta\tau)$ matching a measured
continuum-breakdown threshold); and (ii) a separate mathematical argument about the constant-$\nu$
equation itself --- which Xavier--Stokes, being a different equation, cannot supply.

\end{document}
