Rigor Without Rigidity

A Conceptual Framework with Formal Companion

Authors

Adrian Cox

Abstract

Rigor Without Rigidity (RWR) is a meta-level framework for evaluating the coherence of mathematical
systems that are open, adaptive, or in active development. It distinguishes rigor from rigidity by
introducing four evaluative quantities—porosity, permeability, rigidity, and rigor—each taking values in
[0, 1]. Together, these quantities provide a shared descriptive language for discussing how well a
mathematical framework holds together relative to the openness it permits.

RWR does not replace proof, supply axiomatic foundations, or adjudicate mathematical truth. Instead, it
functions as a diagnostic and orientational lens, clarifying developmental posture and protecting
exploratory mathematics from premature dismissal. The framework is explicitly heuristic rather than
metric, and its quantitative aspects are intended to support reflective comparison rather than
certification.

This document is presented in two integrated parts. Part I contains the canonical conceptual exposition
of RWR, including methodological guidance and worked applications to both original and established
mathematical frameworks. Part II is a formal companion that records the minimal mathematical
definitions and relations underlying the framework for reference and citation. The formal companion is
derived from, and subordinate to, the conceptual exposition.

Document Structure and Reading Guide

• Part I — Conceptual Framework (Canvas)

Introduces the motivation, philosophical posture, core quantities, methodological guidance, and
worked applications of Rigor Without Rigidity. This part carries the primary interpretive and
explanatory force of the work.

• Part II — Formal Companion (Technical Appendix)

Provides a lightweight formal kernel: precise definitions, basic propositions, and derived
diagnostics. This part supports technical discussion and citation but does not extend or
reinterpret the framework.

Readers interested in conceptual orientation, philosophy of mathematics, or evaluative methodology

should begin with Part I. Readers seeking formal reference may consult Part II as needed.

1
Status of This Document

This combined document constitutes the completed presentation of Rigor Without Rigidity.

• The conceptual framework is intentionally non-foundational and non-category-theoretic.

• The formal companion does not introduce axioms or claims of completeness.
• All future applications, extensions, or translations (including category-theoretic interfaces) are
expected to cite and defer to this work rather than replace it.

The framework is complete in orientation while remaining open in application.

Intended Audience

This work is intended for:

• mathematicians developing or evaluating non-classical or exploratory frameworks,

• philosophers of mathematics concerned with rigor, openness, and practice,
• theoreticians and educators seeking clearer language around mathematical coherence,
• interdisciplinary researchers working at the boundaries of formal systems.

Author’s Note

Rigor Without Rigidity was developed in response to a recurring tension in mathematical practice: the
tendency to equate rigor with closure, and openness with deficiency. This framework aims to dissolve
that false dichotomy without weakening standards of coherence.

It is offered as a lens, not a wall.

2
Rigor Without Rigidity
A Canonical Framework for Measuring Coherence in Open
Mathematics

Status of This Document

This canvas document is the authoritative canonical form of Rigor Without Rigidity (RWR).

It is deliberately not a category-theoretic construction and not a foundational replacement for proof-
based mathematics. Instead, it occupies a meta-level position:

• evaluating mathematical frameworks,

• distinguishing openness from incoherence,
• and providing a shared quantitative language for rigor that does not depend on rigidity.

All subsequent formal papers (including any TeX-based presentation) are derived from this document,
not the other way around.

1. Motivation
Mathematical rigor is universally valued, yet it is often treated as synonymous with rigidity: closure,
inflexibility, and resistance to change. This identification has historically protected mathematics from
error, but it has also functioned as a gatekeeping mechanism, excluding creative, adaptive, or
exploratory work before it can mature.

Rigor Without Rigidity separates these notions.

It asserts that: - rigidity measures closure, not rigor, - rigor measures coherence, not appearance, -
openness is not a defect, provided coherence is maintained.

2. The Four Quantities

RWR evaluates any mathematical framework using four quantities, each taking values in [0, 1].

2.1 Porosity (φ)

Porosity measures openness.

It quantifies the degree to which a framework: - tolerates variation, - admits alternative constructions, -
allows extension without collapse.

Low porosity corresponds to stone-like closure. High porosity corresponds to creative breathing space.

1
2.2 Permeability (κ)

Permeability measures realized coherent flow through openness.

It quantifies how much of the available openness: - actually connects, - supports inference, - integrates
into the core structure.

High porosity without permeability indicates fragmentation rather than creativity.

2.3 Rigidity (ρ)

Rigidity measures closure.

It is defined as the complement of porosity:

ρ := 1 − φ.

Rigidity provides stability and resistance to change, but by itself says nothing about coherence.

2.4 Rigor (R)

Rigor measures coherence relative to openness.

For φ > 0, rigor is defined as:

R := κ/φ.

If φ = 0, rigor is defined to be 0.

Rigor answers the question:

Given the openness this framework allows, how coherently does it hold together?

3. Interpretation
• A rigid classical system may have low φ and high R.
• An adaptive creative system may have high φ and still high R.
• A chaotic system has high φ but low κ, and therefore low R.
• A fully closed system (φ = 0) has no rigor, because nothing flows.

Rigor is therefore logically independent of rigidity.

2
4. Residual and Combined Measures
Two derived quantities are often useful:

• Residual porosity: φ − κ, measuring unused or incoherent openness.

• Transmissive capacity: φ⋅ κ, measuring combined openness and realized flow.

These are diagnostic tools, not primary scores.

5. Methodological Use
RWR is applied as follows:

1. Choose the mathematical framework under evaluation.

2. Estimate porosity φ using observable indicators (e.g. generalisability, tolerance for variation,
interface width).
3. Estimate permeability κ using observable indicators (e.g. theorem density, integrative links,
problem-solving efficacy).
4. Compute rigidity ρ and rigor R.
5. Interpret the resulting position within porosity–rigor space.

On Estimation and Reproducibility

Values for φ and κ are estimated, not measured in a strict physical sense. They should be understood
as interval judgments informed by multiple indicators rather than exact point truths.

Good practice includes: - stating which indicators were used, - giving brief justification for each
estimate, - revising estimates as the framework develops, - and, where possible, comparing estimates
across multiple evaluators.

The goal is orientation, not certification.

6. What RWR Is Not

Rigor Without Rigidity does not:

• replace formal proof,

• supply axiomatic foundations,
• rank mathematical value,
• adjudicate truth.

It exists to:

• make judgments of rigor explicit rather than implicit,

• protect exploratory mathematics from premature dismissal,
• clarify developmental stage rather than enforce closure.

3
On Misuse and “Rigor-Washing”

RWR must not be used to lend false legitimacy to incoherent or underdeveloped systems.

In particular: - High porosity alone does not imply rigor. - Systems with high openness but low
permeability necessarily score low in rigor. - Claims of rigor should always be accompanied by evidence
of coherent internal flow.

RWR diagnoses openness and coherence; it does not excuse their absence.

7. Relationship to Other Frameworks

RWR sits above all specific mathematical systems.

• Category theory is evaluated by RWR.

• Classical foundations are evaluated by RWR.
• Original frameworks (BIDN, Adi Polytopes, etc.) are evaluated by RWR.

RWR itself is not internalised into any of these systems.

On Self-Reference

In principle, RWR could be examined under its own criteria in terms of clarity, coherence, and
applicability. Such an examination would concern its usefulness as a lens, not its truth or authority.

This document intentionally leaves that judgment to its users rather than attempting self-certification.

8. Development Posture

Illustrative Comparative Anchors

The following indicative placements help ground interpretation. They are illustrative, not normative.

Framework φ (Porosity) κ (Permeability) R (Rigor)

Euclidean Geometry Low (~0.15) Low (~0.15) High (≈1.0)

Abstract Algebra Moderate (~0.45) Moderate (~0.42) High (~0.9)

Topology High (~0.70) Moderate (~0.55) Moderate (~0.8)

Category Theory Very High (~0.75) High (~0.60) Moderate–High (~0.8)

BIDN Very High (~0.80) High (~0.60) High (~0.75)

These anchors are included to aid interpretation, not to impose hierarchy.

This framework is intentionally minimal.

4
Further development should prioritise: - clarity over expansion, - stability over novelty, - application over
proliferation.

Any formalisation beyond the definitions already given should be justified by increased explanatory
power, not aesthetic completeness.

9. Worked Application: BIDN / Rational BIDN Fieldoid

This section demonstrates how Rigor Without Rigidity is applied in practice. The goal is not to certify
BIDN as complete, but to locate it accurately within porosity–rigor space and make its developmental
posture explicit.

9.1 Framework Under Evaluation

BIDN / Rational BIDN Fieldoid is a locally structured arithmetic framework in which: - operations are
defined relative to bases, - identities and inverses may exist locally but not globally, - non-existence and
obstruction are treated as invariant data rather than errors.

The framework explicitly rejects forced global cancellation and totalisation.

9.2 Porosity (φ)

BIDN exhibits high porosity.

Indicators: - Multiple local identities (“many ones”) are permitted. - Cancellation laws are context-
dependent. - Operations may be partial or multi-valued. - Structure varies across bases with no
privileged global base.

Interpretation: - The framework leaves substantial breathing room for variation. - Openness is
structural, not accidental.

Assessment: φ is high.

9.3 Permeability (κ)

BIDN also exhibits substantial permeability, though not maximal.

Indicators: - Local field-like regions exist with coherent algebraic behaviour. - Transport maps preserve
structure where defined. - Obstructions recur systematically rather than chaotically. - Local units act
consistently within their domains.

Limitations: - Not all local structures transport globally. - Some openness remains unintegrated by
design.

Interpretation: - Much of the openness carries meaningful flow. - Remaining incoherence is intentional
and informative, not noise.

5
Assessment: κ is moderately high, but strictly less than φ.

9.4 Rigidity (ρ)

By definition:

ρ = 1 − φ.

Given the high porosity, BIDN has low rigidity.

Interpretation: - The framework resists closure. - Stability is achieved locally rather than globally.

This low rigidity is a design feature, not a weakness.

9.5 Rigor (R)

Rigor is defined as:

R = κ / φ.

Because permeability tracks porosity closely (though not perfectly), BIDN exhibits strong adaptive
rigor.

Interpretation: - The framework holds together coherently relative to the openness it allows. - Where
flow is blocked, the blockage itself is structurally meaningful.

BIDN therefore occupies the adaptive rigor region rather than the chaotic openness region.

9.6 Summary of Scores

Quantity Meaning Value

φ Porosity 0.80

κ Permeability 0.60

ρ Rigidity 0.20

R Rigor 0.75

9.7 Developmental Interpretation

Under Rigor Without Rigidity, BIDN should be understood as: - legitimately rigorous, - intentionally non-
closed, - developmentally active rather than incomplete.

6
Premature demands for global axioms or totalisation would reduce rigor by destroying informative
obstruction.

9.8 Guidance Going Forward

RWR implies the following for BIDN development: - Preserve partiality and locality. - Formalise transport
and interaction before closure. - Use category theory as a translation layer, not a foundation. - Treat
obstructions as first-class data.

BIDN does not need to “become a field” to be rigorous.

10. Worked Application: Adi Polytopes

This section applies Rigor Without Rigidity to Adi Polytopes, with explicit quantitative estimates. The
intent is not to fix these values permanently, but to locate the framework honestly within porosity–
rigor space.

10.1 Framework Under Evaluation

Adi Polytopes are a family of dimension-dependent geometric structures in which: - dimensional

projection and subtraction are primary operations, - vertex incidence grows nonlinearly under
dimensional reduction, - combinatorial colouring constraints emerge from geometric structure, - cross-
dimensional coherence is preserved without enforcing uniform dimensional laws.

They occupy a middle ground between classical polytope theory and adaptive, projection-driven
geometry.

10.2 Porosity (φ)

Adi Polytopes exhibit moderate-to-high porosity.

Indicators: - Multiple dimensions are treated on equal footing. - Dimensional reduction is not rigidly
canonical. - Colouring and incidence constraints are allowed to emerge rather than being imposed. -
The framework is open to extension across dimensions and interpretations.

However: - The objects themselves are well-defined. - Geometry remains structured rather than fluid.

Estimated porosity:

φ ≈ 0.62

10.3 Permeability (κ)

Adi Polytopes exhibit high permeability relative to their openness.

7
Indicators: - Structural properties transport coherently across dimensions. - Projection preserves
incidence relations in a systematic way. - Colouring constraints remain interpretable under dimensional
change. - New dimensions do not fragment previously established structure.

Interpretation: - Most openness contributes directly to coherent structure. - Very little openness is
wasted or incoherent.

Estimated permeability:

κ ≈ 0.52

10.4 Rigidity (ρ)

Rigidity is defined as:

ρ = 1 − φ.

Given the estimated porosity:

ρ ≈ 0.38

Interpretation: - The framework retains geometric discipline. - It is neither stone-like nor loose.

10.5 Rigor (R)

Rigor is defined as:

R = κ / φ.

Substituting the estimated values:

R ≈ 0.52 / 0.62 ≈ 0.84

Interpretation: - Adi Polytopes exhibit strong adaptive rigor. - Coherence is high relative to openness. -
The framework comfortably avoids chaotic openness.

10.6 Summary of Scores

Quantity Meaning Value

φ Porosity 0.62

κ Permeability 0.52

ρ Rigidity 0.38

R Rigor 0.84

8
10.7 Developmental Interpretation

Under Rigor Without Rigidity, Adi Polytopes should be understood as: - structurally coherent, -
geometrically disciplined, - open enough to support generalisation, - mature enough to support
selective formalisation.

They sit closer to classical rigor than BIDN, but remain decisively adaptive rather than rigid.

10.8 Guidance Going Forward

RWR suggests the following priorities: - Preserve geometric intuition as primary. - Formalise projection
and dimensional relations before colouring theorems. - Introduce category theory only as an external
organisational layer. - Avoid premature axiomatization across all dimensions.

Adi Polytopes are ready for careful interface with category theory, but do not require closure to be
rigorous.

11. Worked Application: Category Theory

This section applies Rigor Without Rigidity to Category Theory as a benchmark case. The purpose is
illustrative: to ground interpretation of scores using a well-established framework whose openness and
abstraction are widely recognised.

11.1 Framework Under Evaluation

Category Theory is a unifying mathematical language focused on objects, morphisms, and

compositional structure. It emphasises relationships over internal construction and supports powerful
abstraction across diverse domains.

Its development includes ordinary categories, functorial semantics, adjunctions, higher categories, and
applications across algebra, topology, logic, and computer science.

11.2 Porosity (φ)

Category Theory exhibits very high porosity.

Indicators: - Broad generality across mathematical domains. - Many equivalent formalisms and internal
languages. - Easy extensibility to enriched, higher, and specialised categories. - Minimal commitment to
internal structure of objects.

Interpretation: - The framework permits wide variation and abstraction. - New constructions can be
introduced without disturbing the core language.

Estimated porosity:

9
φ ≈ 0.75

11.3 Permeability (κ)

Category Theory exhibits high but not maximal permeability.

Indicators: - Strong coherence via composition, functoriality, and universal properties. - Deep
integrative results (adjunctions, representability, Yoneda). - Effective transport of structure across
domains when categorical insight is present.

Limitations: - High abstraction creates a learning barrier. - Coherent flow often requires expert
mediation to be realised in applications.

Interpretation: - A large fraction of openness supports coherent structure. - Some openness remains
latent or inaccessible to non-specialists.

Estimated permeability:

κ ≈ 0.60

11.4 Rigidity (ρ)

Rigidity is defined as:

ρ = 1 − φ.

Given the estimated porosity:

ρ ≈ 0.25

Interpretation: - Category Theory is not rigid in the sense of closure. - Stability arises from
compositional laws rather than restrictive axioms.

11.5 Rigor (R)

Rigor is defined as:

R = κ / φ.

Substituting the estimated values:

R ≈ 0.60 / 0.75 ≈ 0.80

Interpretation: - Category Theory exhibits high rigor relative to its openness. - Coherence is strong,
but not total, given the degree of abstraction permitted.

10
11.6 Summary of Scores

Quantity Meaning Value

φ Porosity 0.75

κ Permeability 0.60

ρ Rigidity 0.25

R Rigor 0.80

11.7 Developmental Interpretation

Under Rigor Without Rigidity, Category Theory should be understood as: - highly open and abstract, -
strongly coherent internally, - demanding in terms of access and application, - mature, but not
maximally permeable to all users.

Its rigor is genuine and substantial, but its openness creates barriers that limit how fully coherence is
realised in practice.

11.8 Comparative Position

Relative to other frameworks in this document: - Category Theory is less porous than BIDN, but more
porous than Adi Polytopes. - It is more permeable than many exploratory systems, but less
permeable than tightly constrained classical theories. - Its rigor sits comfortably in the upper adaptive
range, rather than at the extreme of closure.

11.9 Guidance Going Forward

RWR suggests the following posture toward Category Theory: - Preserve abstraction, but prioritise
pedagogical permeability. - Value universal properties as coherence anchors. - Avoid equating
abstraction with rigor by default.

Category Theory remains one of the most powerful organisational languages in mathematics, and
under RWR it stands as a high-rigor, high-openness benchmark rather than a rigid ideal.

Closing Note
Rigor Without Rigidity is a lens, not a wall.

It allows mathematics to be strong without being closed, creative without being chaotic, and open
without losing coherence.

This canvas document defines the framework completely in orientation, while leaving its future
applications deliberately open.

11
Rigor Without Rigidity is a lens, not a wall.

It allows mathematics to be strong without being closed, creative without being chaotic, and open
without losing coherence.

This canvas document defines the framework completely in orientation, while leaving its future
applications deliberately open.

12
 Rigor Without Rigidity: A Formal Companion

Status and Scope

This document is a formal companion to the canonical canvas text Rigor Without Rigidity. It does
not replace that document and does not serve as a foundational theory.
Its purpose is to:

• state the core definitions precisely,

• record basic algebraic relations,

• support citation and technical discussion.

All interpretation, application, and philosophical posture are governed by the canvas document.

1 Core Quantities
Let F be a mathematical framework under evaluation.

1.1 Porosity
Definition 1 (Porosity). The porosity of F is a value

φ(F) ∈ [0, 1]

measuring the degree of structural openness tolerated by the framework.

1.2 Permeability
Definition 2 (Permeability). The permeability of F is a value

κ(F) ∈ [0, 1]

measuring the extent to which openness supports coherent internal flow.

1.3 Rigidity
Definition 3 (Rigidity). The rigidity of F is defined by

ρ(F) := 1 − φ(F).

1
1.4 Rigor
Definition 4 (Rigor). The rigor of F is defined by
 κ(F) , φ(F) > 0,


R(F) := φ(F)
0, φ(F) = 0.


2 Basic Properties
Proposition 1. For any framework F,
0 ≤ R(F) ≤ 1.
Proof. Since 0 ≤ κ(F) ≤ φ(F) ≤ 1, division yields 0 ≤ κ(F)/φ(F) ≤ 1 when φ(F) > 0. The case
φ(F) = 0 is defined separately.
Proposition 2. Rigor is independent of rigidity.
Proof. Rigidity depends only on φ(F), while rigor depends on the ratio κ(F)/φ(F). Distinct
frameworks may share identical rigidity values while differing in permeability.

3 Derived Diagnostics
Definition 5 (Residual Porosity). The residual porosity of F is
φ(F) − κ(F).
Definition 6 (Transmissive Capacity). The transmissive capacity of F is
φ(F) κ(F).

4 Estimation Protocol (Non-Axiomatic)

The values φ and κ are estimated, not measured. They are obtained via indicator bundles such as:
• tolerance for variation,
• transport of structure,
• integrative theorem density,
• resistance to incoherent extension.
No claim of objectivity beyond informed intersubjective agreement is made.

5 Non-Goals
This framework does not:
• replace formal proof,
• define mathematical truth,
• impose hierarchy of value,
• serve as a foundational system.

2
Conclusion
This formal companion records the minimal mathematical structure underlying Rigor Without
Rigidity. All interpretive force resides in the canonical canvas document.