Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suppose that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of a Euclidean space such that $A\cap B\neq\varnothing$, and we aim to find a point in this intersection with the help of the sequences $(a_n)_\nnn$ and $(b_n)_\nnn$ generated by the \emph{method of alternating projections}. It is well known that if $A$ and $B$ are convex, then $(a_n)_\nnn$ and $(b_n)_\nnn$ converge to some point in $A\cap B$. The situation in the nonconvex case is much more delicate. In 1990, Combettes and Trussell presented a dichotomy result that guarantees either convergence to a point in the intersection or a nondegenerate compact continuum as the set of cluster points. In this note, we construct two sets in the Euclidean plane illustrating the continuum case. The sets $A$ and $B$ can be chosen as countably infinite unions of closed convex sets. In contrast, we also show that such behaviour is impossible for finite unions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".