MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101018421

3 THE DIRICHLET PROPERTY FOR TENSOR ALGEBRAS

2016· article· en· W3101018421 on OpenAlexaff
Evgenios T. A. Kakariadis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsTensor (intrinsic definition)Dirichlet distributionProperty (philosophy)Algebra over a fieldLatent Dirichlet allocationPure mathematicsComputer scienceTopic modelInformation retrievalEpistemologyPhilosophyMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove that the tensor algebra of a C * -correspondence X is Dirichlet if and only if X is a Hilbert bimodule.As a consequence, we point out and fix an error appearing in the proof of a famous result of Duncan.Secondly we answer a question raised by Davidson and Katsoulis concerning tensor algebras and semi-Dirichlet algebras, by giving an example of a Dirichlet algebra that cannot be described as the tensor algebra of any C * -correspondence.Furthermore we show that the adding tail technique, as extended by the author and Katsoulis, applies in a unique way to preserve the class of Hilbert bimodules.The exploitation of these ideas implies that the tensor algebra of row-finite graphs, the tensor algebra of multivariable automorphic C *dynamics and Peters' semicrossed product of an injective C * -dynamical system have the unique extension property.The two latter provide examples of non-separable operator algebras that admit a Choquet boundary in the sense of Arveson.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.004
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207