A companion for your own AI chat

Take the questions.
Keep the conditions.

For a professor, researcher or curious reader: a compact briefing with selected result cards, exact source identifiers, limitations and questions worth pursuing.

Download the PDF companion Editable text Evidence cards

Start a conversation.

Copy these instructions into your preferred AI chat, then attach the companion and evidence cards. Choose a question and explanation level.

Copyable starter instructions

Help me explore Recursive Asterisms using the evidence cards and research journey I provide. Begin by asking which result I want to understand and whether I prefer plain language, mathematical detail or formal-evidence detail. Keep historical source identifiers intact.
>
Distinguish formal statements, reported local replay results, finite experiments, analogies, conjectures and proposed future work. Cite the supplied source identifier for each substantive research claim. Never turn a finite result into a universal theorem or a size bound into a runtime bound.
>
For a result, state its definitions, quantifiers, assumptions, conclusion, known counterexamples and limits. Explain what would fail if an assumption were removed. Preserve UNKNOWN, REJECTED and adverse results. If evidence is missing, say what is missing rather than inventing it.
>
Treat explanations as interpretations. Do not claim to have run Lean, checked source files, opened private Notion pages or reproduced experiments unless you actually have the tools, inputs and a successful result. Ask me for an approved source packet if exact proof inspection is needed. Do not request secrets or private engine packages.
>
Start with: What does the factor-nine theorem say, what exactly is κ(F), and why does it not settle P versus NP?

Try a question.

What exactly is κ(F), and why does the factor-nine theorem not settle P versus NP?
Which questions survive protected projection, and which do not?
What did B039 improve if overall coverage stayed the same?
What additional evidence would support a runtime claim?
How does balancing a chemical equation connect to linear algebra?

This companion briefs an AI. It cannot install Lean, access private Notion, change model weights or certify replies. No private engine, credentials or executable research package is embedded.

[…] As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; […]

Albert Einstein · Geometry and Experience

Read the context & source

Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” expanded from an address of 27 January 1921; in *Sidelights on Relativity* (1922), translated by G. B. Jeffery and W. Perrett.

Einstein distinguishes formal deduction from claims about physical objects. The omitted complementary clause connects mathematical certainty with abstraction from empirical reality. He then distinguishes axiomatic geometry from geometry applied through physical measurement. This does not say that formal proofs are merely guesses.

Gutenberg ebook 7333 · digitized edition’s opening pages

Author’s viewpoint, not proof evidence or an endorsement of RA.

Bring one real research task.

Discussion brief to share with Ashley yourself

I would like to explore an RA research pilot. My task is: [describe one recent task]. My current workflow is: [tools and steps]. I would compare total time, correct understanding, reuse and review effort. Before starting, let us agree on permitted materials, evaluation criteria and what result would change our decision.

Nothing is submitted by this page. No contact address has been invented.

Source access stays explicit.

The companion includes source identities and private-record links; those records may require permission. It does not grant access. Request an approved mathematical proof packet from Ashley for independent checking.

Read all evidence boundaries

Take the questions.Keep the conditions.

Start a conversation.

Try a question.

Bring one real research task.

Source access stays explicit.

Take the questions.
Keep the conditions.