MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155589502 · doi:10.1016/j.anihpc.2010.11.001

An inverse function theorem in Fréchet spaces

2010· article· en· W2155589502 on OpenAlexaff
Ivar Ekeland

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de l Institut Henri Poincaré C Analyse Non Linéaire · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverse function theoremMathematicsDifferentiable functionLebesgue integrationDominated convergence theoremInversePure mathematicsConvergence (economics)Mathematical analysisPicard–Lindelöf theoremRate of convergenceFixed-point theoremCompact convergenceKey (lock)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I present an inverse function theorem for differentiable maps between Fréchet spaces which contains the classical theorem of Nash and Moser as a particular case. In contrast to the latter, the proof does not rely on the Newton iteration procedure, but on Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem and Ekeland's variational principle. As a consequence, the assumptions are substantially weakened: the map F to be inverted is not required to be C^{2} , or even C^{1} , or even Fréchet-differentiable. Résumé Je présente un théorème d'inversion pour des applications différentiables entre espaces de Fréchet, qui contient le théorème classique de Nash et Moser. Contrairement à ce dernier, la démonstration donnée ici ne repose pas sur l'algorithme itératif de Newton, mais sur le théorème de convergence dominée de Lebesgue et le principe variationnel d'Ekeland. Comme conséquence, les hypothèses sont substantiellement affaiblies : on ne demande pas que l'application F à inverser soit de classe C^{2} , ni même C^{1} , ni même différentiable au sens de Fréchet.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de l Institut Henri Poincaré C Analyse Non LinéaireSame topicGeometric Analysis and Curvature FlowsFrench-language works237,207