Comb tooth index ambiguity

One beat magnitude does not tell us the integer $n$. In the example, every proposed optical frequency $n(250\mathrm{MHz})+50\mathrm{MHz}$ produces the same signed beat with its corresponding tooth. A coarse independent optical measurement can select the integer: once the beat sign is known, an error bound below $f_r/2$ suffices if the candidate is selected by nearest distance.

There is also a useful two-spacing check. Keep the unknown laser and $f_0$ fixed, track the same tooth continuously, and increase $f_r$ by a stipulated $5\mathrm{Hz}$. Its frequency rises by $10\mathrm{MHz}$, so the signed beat falls from $30$ to $20\mathrm{MHz}$. HenceThis inference fails if the unknown drifts appreciably, the offset changes unnoticed, the beat sign is lost, or the tracker jumps to another tooth. The assumed tooth motion stays well below half the spacing in this example. If $f_0$ also changes by a measured amount, use $n=-(\Delta b+\Delta f_0)/\Delta f_r$.

For a fixed verified tooth number, the first-order frequency error is $\delta f_L=n\delta f_r+\delta f_0+\delta b$. Errors in these readings can be correlated because they share a reference. A small beat uncertainty therefore does not imply the same absolute optical accuracy: the reference's calibration and the factor $n$ remain in the error budget. A wrong tooth number is a separate discrete error, not a small correction. The beauty of the comb is that two controlled parameters organize millions of optical reference points, while the unknown's position is read electronically.