MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078906976 · doi:10.4236/am.2014.521311

The Mathematics of Harmony. Proclus’ Hypothesis and New View on Euclid’s Elements and History of Mathematics Starting since Euclid

2014· article· en· W2078906976 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

VenueApplied Mathematics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsRogers Communications (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmony (color)Golden ratioSection (typography)Theoretical physicsMathematicsEpistemologyPhilosophyPhysicsGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are discussing one of the most unlikely hypotheses in the history of mathematics—Proclus’ hypothesis, which overturns a traditional view on Euclid’s Elements and the history of mathematics, starting since Euclid. According to Proclus, the main goal of Euclid, when writing the Elements, was to build a complete geometric theory of Platonic solids (Book XIII), associated in the ancient philosophy (Pythagoras, Plato) with the Universe harmony. To construct this theory, Euclid introduced in Book II the problem of dividing a segment into extreme and mean ratio (the “golden section”). It follows from Proclus’ hypothesis that Euclid’s Elements are the first attempt to create the “Mathematical Theory of the Universe Harmony”, based on Platonic solids and the “golden section”.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.196 · 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