MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404722159

New Sums Identities In Weighted Catalan Triangle With The Powers Of Generalized Fibonacci And Lucas Numbers.

2014· article· en· W2404722159 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emrah Kılıç, Aynur Yalçıner

Bibliographic record

VenueArs Combinatoria · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Theories and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibonacci numberCatalan numberMathematicsCombinatoricsBinomial coefficientCatalanLucas numberInteger (computer science)Binomial (polynomial)Identity (music)Discrete mathematicsStatisticsPhysicsHumanities
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a generalized Catalan triangle de…ned by km n 2n n k for positive integer m: Then we compute the weighted half binomial sums with the certain powers of generalized Fibonacci and Lucas numbers of the form n X k=0 2n n+ k km n X tk; where Xn either generalized Fibonacci or Lucas numbers, t and r are integers for 1 m 6: After we describe a general methodology to show how to compute the sums for further values of m. 1. Introduction Shapiro [6] derived the following triangle similar to Pascal’s triangle with entries given by Bn;k = k n 2n n k ; which called Catalan triangle because the Catalan numbers Cn = 1 n+1 2n n are the entries in the …rst column. Shapiro derived sums identities from the Catalan triangle. For example, he gave the following identities: n X p=1 (Bn;p) 2 = C2n 1 and n X p=1 Bn;pBn+1;p = C2n: We also refer to [5] and references therein for other examples. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classi…cation. 11B37. Key words and phrases. Catalan triangle, sums identites, partial binomial sum, recursions. 1 2 EMRAH KILIC AND AYNUR YALCINER The authors [4] gave also an alternative proof of the identities above and established the following identity: n X p=1 (pBn;p) 2 = (3n 2)C2(n 1): In a somewhat di¤erent from the Catalan triangle, K¬l¬c and Ionascu [2] derived the following result: for any a 2 C f0g ; n X p=1 2n n+ k a + a k = 1 an (a+ 1) 2n + (n+ 1)Cn: The authors also gave applications to the generalized Fibonacci and Lucas sequences, de…ned by Un = AUn 1 + Un 2; Vn = AVn 1 + Vn 2; where U0 = 0; U1 = 1; and V0 = 2; V1 = A; respectively. The Binet forms are Un = n n and Vn = n + n where ; = (A p )=2 and = A + 4: For example, we recall one result from [2]: n X

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArs CombinatoriaSame topicAdvanced Mathematical Theories and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207