Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Taylor–Socolar tilings are regular hexagonal tilings of the plane but are distinguished in being comprised of hexagons of two colors in an aperiodic way. We place the Taylor–Socolar tilings into an algebraic setting, which allows one to see them directly as model sets and to understand the corresponding tiling hull along with its generic and singular parts. Although the tilings were originally obtained by matching rules and by substitution, our approach sets the tilings into the framework of a cut and project scheme and studies how the tilings relate to the corresponding internal space. The centers of the entire set of tiles of one tiling form a lattice Q in the plane. If XQ denotes the set of all Taylor–Socolar tilings with centers on Q, then XQ forms a natural hull under the standard local topology of hulls and is a dynamical system for the action of Q.The Q-adic completion Q of Q is a natural factor of XQ and the natural mapping XQ → Q is bijective except at a dense set of points of measure 0 in /Q. We show that XQ consists of three LI classes under translation. Two of these LI classes are very small, namely countable Q-orbits in XQ. The other is a minimal dynamical system, which maps surjectively to /Q and which is variously 2 : 1, 6 : 1, and 12 : 1 at the singular points. We further develop the formula of what determines the parity of the tiles of a tiling in terms of the coordinates of its tile centers. Finally we show that the hull of the parity tilings can be identified with the hull XQ; more precisely the two hulls are mutually locally derivable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".