Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ : Cet article propose que l’équivalence postulée entre la descente infinie et l’induction transfinie dans les fondements de l’arithmétique fait intervenir le principe du tiers exclu par la double négation sur l’ensemble infini des nombres naturels et ne saurait donc être admissible du point de vue de la logique et des mathématiques intuitionnistes. Si, par ailleurs, on adopte le point de vue de la logique classique, les principes de l’induction complète, de l’induction transfinie, du plus petit nombre et de la descente infinie sont tous équivalents; pourtant, la descente infinie en jeu dans l’arithmétique ensembliste de Dedekind-Peano ne correspond pas à la descente infinie de Fermat en théorie des nombres et en arithmétique classique de Gauss jusqu’à nos jours. C’est là le point d’ancrage d’une critique fondationnelle qui cherche à mieux définir les options philosophiques dans les fondements de la logique et des mathématiques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".