Efficient Computation of the Large Inductive Dimension Using Order- and Graph-theoretic Means
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finite topological spaces and their dimensions have many applications in computer science, e.g., in digital topology, computer graphics and the analysis and synthesis of digital images. Georgiou et. al. [11] provided a polynomial algorithm for computing the covering dimension dim( X; 𝒯) of a finite topological space (X; 𝒯). In addition, they asked whether algorithms of the same complexity for computing the small inductive dimension ind( X; 𝒯) and the large inductive dimension Ind( X; 𝒯) can be developed. The first problem was solved in a previous paper [4]. Using results of the that paper, we also solve the second problem in this paper. We present a polynomial algorithm for Ind( X; 𝒯), so that there are now efficient algorithms for the three most important notions of a dimension in topology. Our solution reduces the computation of Ind( X; 𝒯), where the specialisation pre-order of ( X; 𝒯) is taken as input, to the computation of the maximal height of a specific class of directed binary trees within the partially ordered set. For the latter an efficient algorithm is presented that is based on order- and graph-theoretic ideas. Also refinements and variants of the algorithm are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it