MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056156043 · doi:10.1017/s0012217309090015

La descente infinie, l’induction transfinie et le tiers exclu

2009· article· fr· W2056156043 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.241 · 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