MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036107608 · doi:10.1112/plms/pdl008

Diophantine analysis and torsion on elliptic curves

2006· article· en· W2036107608 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Ingram

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the London Mathematical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsElliptic curveDiophantine equationConjectureTorsion (gastropod)Rational numberSchoof's algorithmSupersingular elliptic curvePure mathematicsJacobian curveOrder (exchange)Modular elliptic curveRational pointHessian form of an elliptic curveTwists of curvesAlgebraic numberMathematical analysisQuarter period

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent paper of Bennett and the author, it was shown that the elliptic curve defined by y2 = x3 + Ax + B, where A and B are integers, has no rational points of finite order if A is sufficiently large relative to B (at least if one assumes the abc Conjecture of Masser and Oesterlé). In the present article we show, perhaps surprisingly, that the rational torsion on the above curve is also quite restricted if B is sufficiently large relative to A. In particular, we demonstrate that for any ε > 0 there is a constant cε such that if A and B are integers satisfying |B| > cε |A|6+ε, then the elliptic curve defined above has no rational torsion points, other than a possible point of order 2 (again making use of the abc Conjecture in some cases). We then extend this by proving similar results for elliptic curves admitting non-trivial ℚ-isogenies, elliptic curves written in other forms, and elliptic curves over certain number fields. Curiously, the results on isogenies lead to two unexpected irrationality measures for certain algebraic 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 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)0.001
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207