MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014239444 · doi:10.1093/logcom/exaa059

Operator algebras with hyperarithmetic theory

2020· preprint· en· W3014239444 on OpenAlexafffund
Isaac Goldbring, Bradd Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Logic and Computation · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFinitely-generated abelian groupEmbeddingMathematicsOperator (biology)OmegaCombinatoricsWord (group theory)Operator algebraLambdaGroup (periodic table)Algebra over a fieldPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We show that the following operator algebras have hyperarithmetic theory: the hyperfinite II$_1$ factor $\mathcal R$, $L(\varGamma )$ for $\varGamma $ a finitely generated group with solvable word problem, $C^*(\varGamma )$ for $\varGamma $ a finitely presented group, $C^*_\lambda (\varGamma )$ for $\varGamma $ a finitely generated group with solvable word problem, $C(2^\omega )$ and $C(\mathbb P)$ (where $\mathbb P$ is the pseudoarc). We also show that the Cuntz algebra $\mathcal O_2$ has a hyperarithmetic theory provided that the Kirchberg embedding problems have affirmative answers. Finally, we prove that if there is an existentially closed (e.c.) II$_1$ factor (resp. $\textrm{C}^*$-algebra) that does not have hyperarithmetic theory, then there are continuum many theories of e.c. II$_1$ factors (resp. e.c. $\textrm{C}^*$-algebras).

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueJournal of Logic and ComputationSame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207