MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268926769 · doi:10.4171/em/291

Would real analysis be complete without the fundamental theorem of calculus?

2015· preprint· en· W2268926769 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElemente der Mathematik · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompleteness (order theory)Differentiable functionCalculus (dental)Real analysisGödel's completeness theoremMathematicsCharacterization (materials science)Variable (mathematics)Key (lock)Fundamental theorem of calculusFundamental theoremDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsComputer scienceFixed-point theoremMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Echoing L.R.Ford's opening words 1 of his delightful Monthly article After all, the adjective "fundamental" says it all -even if, as Bressoud points out, that designation did not come into use until relatively recently We admit that we chose the title for effect, accepting the possibility of leading the reader astray; a more descriptive title would have been: "would the real numbers be complete without the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?" In some sense, however, the title is actually accurate in that this paper will show that a mathematical "world" (which we interpret to mean "totally ordered field") without the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would necessarily be lacking of many of the most cherished parts of Real Analysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.246 · 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