MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046375787 · doi:10.4064/aa118-4-1

The iterated Carmichael λ-function and the number of cycles of the power generator

2005· article· en· W2046375787 on OpenAlexaff
Greg Martin, Carl Pomerance

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Arithmetica · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsBinary logarithmConjectureLog-log plotInteger (computer science)LambdaGenerator (circuit theory)Order (exchange)Iterated functionMultiplicative functionModuloPseudorandom number generatorFunction (biology)Discrete mathematicsPower (physics)StatisticsMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iteration of the modular l-th power function f(x) = x^l (mod n) provides a common pseudorandom number generator (known as the Blum-Blum-Shub generator when l=2). The period of this pseudorandom number generator is closely related to \lambda(\lambda(n)), where \lambda(n) denotes Carmichael's function, namely the maximal multiplicative order of any integer modulo n. In this paper, we show that for almost all n, the size of \lambda(\lambda(n)) is n/exp((1+o(1))(log log n)^2 log log log n). We conjecture an analogous formula for the k-th iterate of \lambda. We deduce that for almost all n, the psuedorandom number generator described above has at least exp((1+o(1))(log log n)^2 log log log n) disjoint cycles. In addition, we show that this expression is accurate for almost all n under the assumption of the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis for Kummerian fields. We also consider the number of iterations of \lambda it takes to reduce an integer n to 1, proving that this number is less than (1+o(1))(log log n)/log 2 infinitely often and speculating that log log n is the true order of magnitude almost always.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa ArithmeticaSame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207