MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finiteness Theorems for Perfect Numbers and Their Kin

2012· article· en· W2406221740 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

VenueAmerican Mathematical Monthly · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsNatural numberPerfect numberEmbeddingDiscrete mathematicsPrime (order theory)CombinatoricsCompact spaceTopology (electrical circuits)ArithmeticComputer sciencePure mathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since ancient times, a natural number has been called perfect if it equals the sum of its proper divisors; e.g., 6 = 1 + 2 + 3 is a perfect number. In 1913, Dickson showed that for each fixed k, there are only finitely many odd perfect numbers with at most k distinct prime factors. We show how this result, and many like it, follow from embedding the natural numbers in the supernatural numbers and imposing an appropriate topology on the latter; the notion of sequential compactness plays a starring role.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.296 · 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