Andrew H. Bond Senior Member, IEEE Department of Computer Engineering San Jose State University andrew.bond@sjsu.edu
Spring 2026
This book argues that the law has a hidden mathematical structure — and that making it visible could transform how we think about constitutional review, judicial consistency, and legal AI.
The argument begins with a simple observation: the entire legal system — every statute, every constitutional provision, every court opinion — is written in natural language. And natural language is inherently ambiguous. What does “equal protection” mean? Does “arms” in the Second Amendment include assault rifles? Does “commerce among the several states” cover wheat grown for personal consumption? Every landmark case in American constitutional law turns on the interpretation of a phrase.
Behind all that language, legal reasoning has geometric structure — a shape — that the words obscure. This book constructs that shape formally, using the same mathematics that describes gauge symmetry in physics, topological invariance in mathematics, and optimal pathfinding in computer science. The result is a framework in which constitutional review becomes a topological computation, equal protection becomes a gauge symmetry, sentencing consistency becomes a measurable index, and legal reasoning itself becomes A* search on a judicial manifold.
The central construction is the judicial complex $\mathcal{K}$ — a weighted directed simplicial complex whose vertices are decided cases, whose edges are doctrinal relationships, and whose attribute vectors encode eight dimensions of legal significance. On this complex, we define invariance principles (legal judgments must not depend on legally irrelevant features), gauge structure (the Hohfeldian octad forms a $D_4 \rtimes D_4$ gauge group), conservation laws (liability is conserved in closed disputes), and constitutional constraints (a statute is constitutional if and only if it preserves the path homology of the constitutional subcomplex).
This is the fifth book in the Geometric Series. Geometric Methods (2026a) provides the mathematical toolkit. Geometric Ethics (2026b) develops the moral manifold. Geometric Reasoning (2026c) establishes the general framework of search on geometric spaces. Geometric Economics (2026d) instantiates it on the economic decision manifold. The present book instantiates it on the judicial manifold, inheriting the D₄ Hohfeldian structure first discovered in the ethics framework.
Andrew H. Bond San Jose, California March 2026
| Object | What It Is | Where Developed |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial complex $\mathcal{K}$ | Weighted directed simplicial complex of decided cases and doctrinal relationships | Ch. 3 |
| 8 legal dimensions | Entitlement, factual nexus, procedure, statutory authority, constitutionality, precedent, remedies, public interest | Ch. 3 |
| Legal Invariance Principle (LIP) | Legal judgments must be invariant under legally irrelevant transformations | Ch. 8 |
| Hohfeldian octad gauge group | $D_4 \rtimes_\varphi D_4$ — the symmetry group of jural relations | Ch. 5 |
| Legal Bond Index | Quantitative measure of judicial inconsistency under gauge transformations | Ch. 8 |
| Path homology | Topological invariant of directed graphs; constitutionality = homology preservation | Ch. 7 |
| Doctrinal heuristic $h_D(n)$ | Legal doctrine as A* heuristic function guiding search through $\mathcal{K}$ | Ch. 6 |
| Precedential weight deformation | Stare decisis as local modification of edge weights | Ch. 9 |
| Legal friction BF$_{\text{law}}$ | Total cost of a litigation path through the judicial complex | Ch. 4 |
| Finding | Source |
|---|---|
| Equal protection is a gauge symmetry (Theorem 7.2) | AJ manuscript |
| Constitutionality iff path homology preserved (Theorem 6.1) | AJ manuscript |
| Liability conserved in closed bilateral disputes (Theorem 7.1) | AJ manuscript |
| Hohfeldian relations form $D_4 \rtimes D_4$ (Theorem 5.1) | AJ manuscript |
| Due process = well-definedness on quotient space (Theorem 7.3) | AJ manuscript |
| Cross-lingual legal invariance (109K passages, 11 languages) | Geometric Ethics |
| Legal Bond Index baseline: 0.155 | Geometric Ethics |
Note: Theorem numbers refer to the companion paper Algorithmic Jurisprudence (Bond, 2026), not to chapter numbers in this book.
Each chapter opens with a running example — Judge Elena Rivera, a federal district court judge — that grounds the abstract framework in judicial decision-making.
| Tag | Meaning | Approx. Count |
|---|---|---|
| [Established Mathematics.] | Standard results from topology, group theory, graph theory | ~15 |
| [Legal Doctrine.] | Established principles of law (equal protection, due process, stare decisis) | ~8 |
| [Modeling Axiom.] | Structural choices (8 dimensions, Mahalanobis metric, path homology for constitutionality) | ~10 |
| [Conditional Theorem.] | Results following from axioms (LIP → gauge invariance, conservation, optimality) | ~12 |
| [Speculation/Extension.] | Forward-looking claims (AI implementation, cross-jurisdictional metrics) | ~8 |
A. Mathematical Prerequisites (Topology, Group Theory) B. The NLP Pipeline for Judicial Complex Construction C. The Algorithmic Jurisprudence Paper (Full Reference)
| Symbol | Meaning |
|---|---|
| $\mathcal{K}$ | Judicial complex |
| $d_1, \ldots, d_8$ | Eight legal dimensions |
| $\Sigma$ | 8×8 covariance matrix of legal dimensions |
| $\beta_k$ | Regime boundary penalty |
| $h_D(n)$ | Doctrinal heuristic function |
| $\text{BF}_{\text{law}}$ | Legal friction (total litigation path cost) |
| $G_{\mathcal{Ho}}$ | Hohfeldian gauge group ($D_4 \rtimes D_4$) |
| LIP | Legal Invariance Principle |
| JBIP | Judicial Bond Invariance Principle |
| $\widetilde{H}_n^{\text{path}}$ | Path homology groups |
| $\mathcal{C}$ | Constitutional subcomplex |
| $W(\ell)$ | Wilson loop around legal cycle $\ell$ |