MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045882129 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2010-032-0

An Explicit Treatment of Cubic Function Fields with Applications

2010· article· en· W2045882129 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Landquist, Pieter Rozenhart, Renate Scheidler, Jonathan Webster, Qingquan Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Wyoming
KeywordsMathematicsPolynomialSquare (algebra)DiscriminantSimple (philosophy)Function (biology)Signature (topology)Field (mathematics)Cube rootCubic formPure mathematicsSingularitySquare rootComputationCubic functionBase (topology)CombinatoricsMathematical analysisAlgorithmGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We give an explicit treatment of cubic function fields of characteristic at least five. This includes an efficient technique for converting such a field into standard form, formulae for the field discriminant and the genus, simple necessary and sufficient criteria for non-singularity of the defining curve, and a characterization of all triangular integral bases. Our main result is a description of the signature of any rational place in a cubic extension that involves only the defining curve and the order of the base field. All these quantities only require simple polynomial arithmetic as well as a few square-free polynomial factorizations and, in some cases, square and cube root extraction modulo an irreducible polynomial. We also illustrate why and how signature computation plays an important role in computing the class number of the function field. This in turn has applications to the study of zeros of zeta functions of function fields.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207