MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098447376 · doi:10.5802/jtnb.457

On the binary expansions of algebraic numbers

2009· article· lv· W2098447376 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David H. Bailey, Jonathan M. Borwein, Richard E. Crandall, Carl Pomerance

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux · 2009
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsMathematicsAlgebraic numberBinary numberDegree (music)Series (stratigraphy)Number theoryDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsArithmeticMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employing concepts from additive number theory, together with results on binary evaluations and partial series, we establish bounds on the density of 1’s in the binary expansions of real algebraic numbers. A central result is that if a real y has algebraic degree D > 1 , then the number # ( | y | , N ) of 1-bits in the expansion of | y | through bit position N satisfies # ( | y | , N ) > C N 1 / D for a positive number C (depending on y ) and sufficiently large N . This in itself establishes the transcendency of a class of reals ∑ n ≥ 0 1 / 2 f ( n ) where the integer-valued function f grows sufficiently fast; say, faster than any fixed power of n . By these methods we re-establish the transcendency of the Kempner–Mahler number ∑ n ≥ 0 1 / 2 2 n , yet we can also handle numbers with a substantially denser occurrence of 1’s. Though the number z = ∑ n ≥ 0 1 / 2 n 2 has too high a 1’s density for application of our central result, we are able to invoke some rather intricate number-theoretical analysis and extended computations to reveal aspects of the binary structure of z 2 .

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)0.029
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
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

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal de Théorie des Nombres de BordeauxSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207