MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994621635 · doi:10.1142/s1793042121500317

On the co-factors of degree 6 Salem number beta expansions

2020· preprint· en· W2994621635 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacob J. Stockton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Number Theory · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsDegree (music)CombinatoricsBETA (programming language)MathematicsTRACE (psycholinguistics)Sequence (biology)Series (stratigraphy)Discrete mathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For [Formula: see text], a sequence [Formula: see text] with [Formula: see text] is the beta expansion of [Formula: see text] with respect to [Formula: see text] if [Formula: see text]. Defining [Formula: see text] to be the greedy beta expansion of [Formula: see text] with respect to [Formula: see text], it is known that [Formula: see text] is eventually periodic as long as [Formula: see text] is a Pisot number. It is conjectured that the same is true for Salem numbers, but is only currently known to be true for Salem numbers of degree 4. Heuristic arguments suggest that almost all degree 6 Salem numbers admit periodic expansions but that a positive proportion of degree 8 Salem numbers do not. In this paper, we investigate the degree 6 case. We present computational methods for searching for families of degree 6 numbers with eventually periodic greedy expansions by studying the co-factors of their expansions. We also prove that the greedy expansions of degree 6 Salem numbers can have arbitrarily large periods. In addition, computational evidence is compiled on the set of degree 6 Salem numbers with [Formula: see text]. We give examples of numbers with [Formula: see text] whose expansions have period and preperiod lengths exceeding [Formula: see text], yet are still eventually periodic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Number TheorySame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207