MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326266814 · doi:10.4153/cmb-2015-037-0

Constructing Double Magma on Groups Using Commutation Operations

2015· article· en· W2326266814 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Charles C. Edmunds

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topics in Algebra
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSemigroupMagmaCommutatorCombinatoricsBinary operationOrder (exchange)Pure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldVolcanoGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A magma ( M , *) is a nonempty set with a binary operation. A double magma ( M , *, •) is a nonempty set with two binary operations satisfying the interchange law ( w * x ) • ( y * z ) = ( w • y )*( x•z ). We call a double magma proper if the two operations are distinct, and commutative if the operations are commutative. A double semigroup , first introduced by Kock, is a double magma for which both operations are associative. Given a non-trivial group G we define a system of two magma ( G , *, •) using the commutator operations x * y = [ x, y ](= x −1 y −1 x y ) and x • y = [ y, x ]. We show that ( G , *, •) is a double magma if and only if G satisfies the commutator laws [ x, y; x, z ] = 1 and [ w, x; y, z ] 2 = 1. We note that the first lawdefines the class of 3-metabelian groups. If both these laws hold in G , the double magma is proper if and only if there exist x 0 , y 0 ∊ G for which [x 0 , y 0 ] 2 ≠ 1. This double magma is a double semigroup if and only if G is nilpotent of class two. We construct a specific example of a proper double semigroup based on the dihedral group of order 16. In addition, we comment on a similar construction for rings using Lie commutators.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicAdvanced Topics in AlgebraFrench-language works237,207