MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008573631 · doi:10.1145/860854.860873

An elementary algorithm for the automatic derivation and proof of tensor product identities via computer algebra

2003· article· en· W2008573631 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick W. Chapman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsTensor productAlgebra over a fieldSymbolic computationSimple (philosophy)Pure mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tensor product identities in two variables are quite common in mathematics: Exponential, logarithmic, trigonometric, and hyperbolic functions all satisfy tensor product identities, and the binomial theorem is a familiar example of a tensor product identity for polynomial functions. This article presents a new elementary technique which can derive and prove all of these identities---automatically! This unified approach is based on the author's recent research on uniqueness theory for dual asymptotic expansions and remainder theory for Taylor interpolation on two lines. These results provide a simple iterative algorithm which derives a tensor product from a closed-form expression using the author's asymptotic splitting operator, and a simple hyperbolic eigenfunction criterion which proves that the two forms are identically equal. The author has implemented these methods as a complete derivation and proof system in the Maple 8 computer algebra system. The Maple code, which is surprisingly brief, is included in its entirety. The article also includes numerous examples which illustrate a variety of novel techniques for deriving and proving tensor product identities using this simple but effective system. (Maple is a registered trademark of Waterloo Maple Inc.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolynomial and algebraic computationFrench-language works237,207