MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010241846 · doi:10.5802/jtnb.781

The Mordell–Lang question for endomorphisms of semiabelian varieties

2011· preprint· en· W2010241846 on OpenAlexafffund
Dragos Ghioca, Thomas J. Tucker, Michael E. Zieve

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubvarietyEndomorphismMathematicsVariety (cybernetics)ConjectureAbelian varietyPure mathematicsIntersection (aeronautics)Intersection homologyCosetSemigroupAlgebraic groupCombinatoricsAlgebraic numberAbelian group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mordell–Lang conjecture describes the intersection of a finitely generated subgroup with a closed subvariety of a semiabelian variety. Equivalently, this conjecture describes the intersection of closed subvarieties with the set of images of the origin under a finitely generated semigroup of translations. We study the analogous question in which the translations are replaced by algebraic group endomorphisms (and the origin is replaced by another point). We show that the conclusion of the Mordell–Lang conjecture remains true in this setting if either (1) the semiabelian variety is simple, (2) the semiabelian variety is A 2 , where A is a one-dimensional semiabelian variety, (3) the subvariety is a connected one-dimensional algebraic subgroup, or (4) each endomorphism has diagonalizable Jacobian at the origin. We also give examples showing that the conclusion fails if we make slight modifications to any of these hypotheses.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal de Théorie des Nombres de BordeauxSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207