MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018860897 · doi:10.1017/jsl.2021.31

THE RELATIVIZED LASCAR GROUPS, TYPE-AMALGAMATION, AND ALGEBRAICITY

2021· preprint· en· W3018860897 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Dobrowolski, Byunghan Kim, Alexei Kolesnikov, Junguk Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Symbolic Logic · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSamsungEuropean Commission
KeywordsType (biology)MathematicsPure mathematicsComputer scienceAlgebra over a fieldBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we study the relativized Lascar Galois group of a strong type. The group is a quasi-compact connected topological group, and if in addition the underlying theory T is G -compact, then the group is compact. We apply compact group theory to obtain model theoretic results in this note. For example, we use the divisibility of the Lascar group of a strong type to show that, in a simple theory, such types have a certain model theoretic property that we call divisible amalgamation. The main result of this paper is that if c is a finite tuple algebraic over a tuple a , the Lascar group of $\operatorname {stp}(ac)$ is abelian, and the underlying theory is G -compact, then the Lascar groups of $\operatorname {stp}(ac)$ and of $\operatorname {stp}(a)$ are isomorphic. To show this, we prove a purely compact group-theoretic result that any compact connected abelian group is isomorphic to its quotient by every finite subgroup. Several (counter)examples arising in connection with the theoretical development of this note are presented as well. For example, we show that, in the main result above, neither the assumption that the Lascar group of $\operatorname {stp}(ac)$ is abelian, nor the assumption of c being finite can be removed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Symbolic LogicSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207