Question 11048: Audit lambda without Clipping an Affine Extension

Original question and givens

Use a finite nonempty ordered vector list and aligned exact rational weights. Convex weights may be zero but must be nonnegative and sum exactly to 1, not merely approximately. A convex-combination witness establishes its weighted point, not unique coordinates without separate affine independence. left=[10, 0], right=[13, 3], lambda=23/25. Give (left,right,normalized lambda,lambda in [0,1]?,lambda*left+(1−lambda)*right,is this a convex combination?). This audit still computes the affine expression when lambda lies outside [0,1], but both qualification flags must then be No. Use exact rational arithmetic, reduce fractions to positive denominators and omit /1 for integer outputs.

• G001 — Use a finite nonempty ordered vector list and aligned exact rational weights. Convex weights may be zero but must be nonnegative and sum exactly to 1, not merely approximately. A convex-combination witness establishes its weighted point, not unique coordinates without separate affine independence. left=[10, 0], right=[13, 3], lambda=23/25. Give (left,right,normalized lambda,lambda in [0,1]?,lambda*left+(1−lambda)*right,is this a convex combination?). This audit still computes the affine expression when lambda lies outside [0,1], but both qualification flags must then be No. Use exact rational arithmetic, reduce fractions to positive denominators and omit /1 for integer outputs.

Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.

• mko-finite-convex-combination

Step-by-step derivation

two-point complementary weight := sub(1, 23/25)

two-point complementary weight = 2/25

two-point:raw lambda=[23, 25];lambda=23/25;one-minus-lambda=2/25

in_closed_unit_interval=Yes;lambda weights left

two-point:ordered vectors=[[10, 0], [13, 3]];aligned weights=[23/25, 2/25]

dimension=2;preserve duplicates and order

two-point coordinate0 term0 := mul(23/25, 10)

two-point coordinate0 term0 = 46/5

two-point coordinate0 term1 := mul(2/25, 13)

two-point coordinate0 term1 = 26/25

two-point coordinate0 sum := sum(46/5, 26/25)

two-point coordinate0 sum = 256/25

two-point coordinate1 term0 := mul(23/25, 0)

two-point coordinate1 term0 = 0

two-point coordinate1 term1 := mul(2/25, 3)

two-point coordinate1 term1 = 6/25

two-point coordinate1 sum := sum(0, 6/25)

two-point coordinate1 sum = 6/25

Reverse checks

• S009 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute two-point coordinate1 sum with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
• S008 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute two-point coordinate1 term1 with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
• S007 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute two-point coordinate1 term0 with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
• S006 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute two-point coordinate0 sum with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
• S005 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute two-point coordinate0 term1 with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
• S004 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute two-point coordinate0 term0 with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
• S003 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
• S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
• S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute two-point complementary weight with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.

Result

([10, 0], [13, 3], 23/25, Yes, [256/25, 6/25], Yes)

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.