MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606194708 · doi:10.1103/physreve.95.043104

Counterexamples to Moffatt's statements on vortex knots

2017· article· en· W2606194708 on OpenAlexaff
Oleg I. Bogoyavlenskij

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortexRotational symmetryPhysicsLimit (mathematics)Vortex ringTorusMagnetohydrodynamicsVortex tubeClassical mechanicsIdeal (ethics)Burgers vortexMechanicsMathematical analysisMagnetic fieldMathematicsGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the well-known problems of hydrodynamics is studied: the problem of classification of vortex knots for ideal fluid flows. In the literature there are known Moffatt statements that all torus knots K_{m,n} for all rational numbers m/n (0<m/n<∞) are realized as vortex knots for each one of the considered axisymmetric fluid flows. We prove that actually such a uniformity does not exist because it does not correspond to the facts. Namely, we derive a complete classification of all vortex knots realized for the fluid flows studied by Moffatt and demonstrate that the real structure of vortex knots is much more rich because the sets of mutually nonisotopic vortex knots realized for different axisymmetric fluid flows are all different. An exact formula for the limit of the hydrodynamic safety factor q_{h} at a vortex axis is derived for arbitrary axisymmetric fluid equilibria. Another exact formula is obtained for the limit of the magnetohydrodynamics safety factor q at a magnetic axis for the general axisymmetric plasma equilibria.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.003

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.406 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207