MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886513500 · doi:10.1142/s1793042116500378

Radical of perfect numbers and perfect numbers among polynomial values

2015· article· en· W1886513500 on OpenAlexaff
Oleksiy Klurman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Number Theory · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsConjecturePerfect powerCombinatoricsDegree (music)Integer (computer science)PolynomialUpper and lower boundsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is conjectured that [Formula: see text] for any perfect number [Formula: see text]. We prove that [Formula: see text] improving the previous bound of Luca and Pomerance as well as Acquaah and Konyagin. As a consequence, we prove that assuming the [Formula: see text]-conjecture, any integer polynomial of degree [Formula: see text] without repeated factors can take only finitely many perfect values. We also show that the latter holds unconditionally for even perfect numbers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Number TheorySame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207