MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chain conditions in computable rings

2010· article· en· W2091132231 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris J. Conidis

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsArtinian ringIdeal (ethics)Ring (chemistry)Principal ideal ringCommutative ringMaximal idealSimple ringPrime idealPure mathematicsNoetherianNoetherian ringDiscrete mathematicsReduced ringNoncommutative ringRadical of a ringPrime (order theory)Algebra over a fieldCombinatoricsCommutative propertyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Friedman, Simpson, and Smith showed that, over RCA$_0$, the statements “Every ring has a maximal ideal” and “Every ring has a prime ideal” are equivalent to ACA$_0$ and WKL$_0$, respectively. More recently, Downey, Lempp, and Mileti have shown that, over RCA$_0$, the statement “Every ring that is not a field contains a nontrivial ideal” is equivalent to WKL$_0$. In this article we explore the reverse mathematical strength of the classic theorems from commutative algebra which say that every Artinian ring is Noetherian, and every Artinian ring is of finite length. In particular we show that, over RCA$_0$, the former implies WKL$_0$ and is implied by ACA$_0$, while over RCA$_0$+B$\Sigma _2$, the latter is equivalent to ACA$_0$.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207