MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1767070251 · doi:10.13001/1081-3810.1081

Proof of Atiyah's conjecture for two special types of configurations

2002· article· en· W1767070251 on OpenAlexaff
Dragomir Ž. Djoković

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Journal of Linear Algebra · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsConjecturePure mathematicsType (biology)Calculus (dental)Algebra over a field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. To an ordered N-tuple (x1,..., xN) of distinct points in R 3, Atiyah [1, 2] has associated an ordered N-tuple of homogeneous polynomials (p1,..., pN) in C[x,y] of degree N − 1, each pi determined only up to a scalar factor. He has conjectured that these polynomials are linearly independent. We show that his conjecture is true for two special configurations of N points. Moreover we show that, for one of these configurations, the stronger conjecture [3, Conjecture 2] is valid. Key words. Atiyah’s conjecture, the Hopf map, configuration of N points in R 3, projective line PC 1. AMS subject classifications. Primary 51M04, 51M16, Secondary 70G25 1. Two conjectures. Let (x1,..., xN) be an ordered N-tuple of distinct points in R 3. Each ordered pair (xi, xj) with i ̸ = j determines a point xj − xi |xj − xi| on the unit sphere S2 ⊂ R3. Identify S2 with the complex projective line PC 1 by using a stereographic projection. Hence one obtains a point (uij, vij) ∈ PC 1 and a nonzero linear form lij = uijx + vijy ∈ C[x, y]. Define homogeneous polynomials pi ∈ C[x, y] of degree N − 1 by pi = ∏ lij(x, y), i = 1,..., N. (1.1) j̸=i Conjecture 1.1. (Atiyah [2]) The polynomials p1,..., pN are linearly independent. Atiyah [1, 2] has observed that his conjecture is true if the points x1,..., xN are collinear. He has also verified the conjecture for N = 3. The case N = 4 has been verified by Eastwood and Norbury [4]. For additional information on the conjecture (further conjectures, generalizations, and numerical evidence) see [2, 3]. In order to state the second conjecture, one has to be more explicit. Identify R 3 with R × C and denote the origin by O. Following Eastwood and Norbury [4], we make use of the Hopf map h: C 2 \\ {O} → (R × C) \\ {O} defined by: h(z, w) = ((|z | 2 − |w | 2)/2, z ¯w). This map is surjective and its fibers are the circles {(zu, wu) : u ∈ S 1}, where S 1 is the unit circle in C. If h(z, w) = (a, v), we say that (z, w) is a lift of (a, v). For

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Journal of Linear AlgebraSame topicMathematics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207