Geometric Aspects of Quasi-Periodic Property of Dirichlet Functions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of quasi-periodic property of a function has been introduced by Harald Bohr in 1921 and it roughly means that the function comes (quasi)-periodically as close as we want on every vertical line to the value taken by it at any point belonging to that line and a bounded domain Ω. He proved that the functions defined by ordinary Dirichlet series are quasi-periodic in their half plane of uniform convergence. We realized that the existence of the domain Ω is not necessary and that the quasi-periodicity is related to the denseness property of those functions which we have studied in a previous paper. Hence, the purpose of our research was to prove these two facts. We succeeded to fulfill this task and more. Namely, we dealt with the quasi-periodicity of general Dirichlet series by using geometric tools perfected by us in a series of previous projects. The concept has been applied to the whole complex plane (not only to the half plane of uniform convergence) for series which can be continued to meromorphic functions in that plane. The question arise: in what conditions such a continuation is possible? There are known examples of Dirichlet series which cannot be continued across the convergence line, yet there are no simple conditions under which such a continuation is possible. We succeeded to find a very natural one.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it