Maximal T-spaces of free associative algebras over a finite field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In earlier work, it was established that for any finite field [Formula: see text] and any nonempty set [Formula: see text], the free associative (nonunitary) [Formula: see text]-algebra on [Formula: see text], denoted by [Formula: see text], had infinitely many maximal [Formula: see text]-spaces, but exactly two maximal [Formula: see text]-ideals (each of which was shown to be a maximal [Formula: see text]-space). This raises the interesting question as to whether or not the maximal [Formula: see text]-spaces can be classified. However, aside from the two maximal [Formula: see text]-ideals, no examples of maximal [Formula: see text]-spaces of [Formula: see text] have been identified to this point. This paper presents, for each finite field [Formula: see text], an infinite set of proper [Formula: see text]-spaces [Formula: see text] of [Formula: see text], none of which is a [Formula: see text]-ideal. It is proven that for any distinct integers [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]. Furthermore, it is proven that for the prime field [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] any prime, [Formula: see text] is a maximal [Formula: see text]-space of [Formula: see text]. We conjecture that for any finite field [Formula: see text] of positive characteristic different from 2 and each integer [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] is a maximal [Formula: see text]-space of [Formula: see text]. In characteristic 2, the situation is slightly different and we provide different candidates for maximal [Formula: see text]-spaces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".