MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023968242 · doi:10.1090/s0002-9939-08-09319-2

On patterns occurring in binary algebraic numbers

2008· article· en· W2023968242 on OpenAlexaff
Boris Adamczewski, Narad Rampersad

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Mathematical Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsAlgorithmAnnotationComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)Artificial intelligenceDatabaseProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove that every algebraic number contains infinitely many occurrences of <inline-formula content-type="math/mathml"> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="7 slash 3"> <mml:semantics> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>7</mml:mn> <mml:mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:annotation encoding="application/x-tex">7/3</mml:annotation> </mml:semantics> </mml:math> </inline-formula> -powers in its binary expansion. Using the same approach, we also show that every algebraic number contains either infinitely many occurrences of squares or infinitely many occurrences of one of the blocks <inline-formula content-type="math/mathml"> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="010"> <mml:semantics> <mml:mn>010</mml:mn> <mml:annotation encoding="application/x-tex">010</mml:annotation> </mml:semantics> </mml:math> </inline-formula> or <inline-formula content-type="math/mathml"> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="02120"> <mml:semantics> <mml:mn>02120</mml:mn> <mml:annotation encoding="application/x-tex">02120</mml:annotation> </mml:semantics> </mml:math> </inline-formula> in its ternary expansion.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207