MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554217735 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v8n6p78

Geometry of the 3D Pythagoras' Theorem

2016· article· en· W2554217735 on OpenAlex
Luis Teia

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsPythagorean theoremGeometryRotation (mathematics)Transformation (genetics)Kelvin–Stokes theoremPure mathematicsBrouwer fixed-point theoremFixed-point theoremDanskin's theorem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explains step-by-step how to construct the 3D Pythagoras' theorem by geometric manipulation of the two dimensional version. In it is shown how $x+y=z$ (1D Pythagoras' theorem) transforms into $x^2+y^2=z^2$ (2D Pythagoras' theorem) via two steps: a 90-degree rotation, and a perpendicular extrusion. Similarly, the 2D Pythagoras' theorem transforms into 3D using the same steps. Octahedrons emerge naturally during this transformation process. Hence, each of the two dimensional elements has a direct three dimensional equivalent. Just like squares govern the 2D, octahedrons are the basic elements that govern the geometry of the 3D Pythagoras' theorem. As a conclusion, the geometry of the 3D Pythagoras' theorem is a natural evolution of the 1D and 2D. This interdimensional evolution begs the question -- Is there a bigger theorem at play that encompasses all three?

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.252 · 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