MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964281852 · doi:10.1142/s1793042113500012

MINIMAL ZERO-SUM SEQUENCES OF LENGTH FOUR OVER FINITE CYCLIC GROUPS II

2013· article· en· W2964281852 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuanlin Li, Jiangtao Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Number Theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRings, Modules, and Algebras
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersCivil Aviation University of ChinaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsCyclic groupOrder (exchange)Sequence (biology)Prime (order theory)Product (mathematics)Zero (linguistics)Finite groupGroup (periodic table)Discrete mathematicsAbelian groupGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let G be a finite cyclic group. Every sequence S over G can be written in the form S = (n1g)⋅…⋅(nlg) where g ∈ G and n1, …, nl ∈ [1, ord (g)], and the index ind (S) of S is defined to be the minimum of (n1+⋯+nl)/ ord (g) over all possible g ∈ G such that 〈g〉 = G. An open problem on the index of length four sequences asks whether or not every minimal zero-sum sequence of length 4 over a finite cyclic group G with gcd (|G|, 6) = 1 has index 1. In this paper, we show that if G = 〈g〉 is a cyclic group with order of a product of two prime powers and gcd (|G|, 6) = 1, then every minimal zero-sum sequence S of the form S = (g)(n2g)(n3g)(n4g) has index 1. In particular, our result confirms that the above problem has an affirmative answer when the order of G is a product of two different prime numbers or a prime power, extending a recent result by the first author, Plyley, Yuan and Zeng.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Number TheorySame topicRings, Modules, and AlgebrasFrench-language works237,207