Abstract versus concrete computation on metric partial algebras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the theory of computation on topological algebras there is a considerable gap between so-called abstract and concrete models of computation. In concrete models, unlike abstract models, the computations depend on the representation of the algebra. First, we show that with abstract models, one needs algebras with partial operations, and computable functions that are both continuous and many-valued. This many-valuedness is needed even to compute single-valued functions, and so abstract models must be nondeterministic even to compute deterministic problems. As an abstract model, we choose the "while"-array programming language, extended with a nondeterministic "countable choice" assignment, called the WhileCC* model. Using this, we introduce the concept of approximable many-valued computation on metric algebras. For our concrete model, we choose metric algebras with effective representations. We prove:(1) for any metric algebra A with an effective representation α, WhileCC* approximability implies computability in α, and (2) also the converse, under certain reasonable conditions on A. From (1) and (2) we derive an equivalence theorem between abstract and concrete computation on metric partial algebras. We give examples of algebras where this equivalence holds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".