MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199013496 · doi:10.4171/icm2022/84

Rational approximations of irrational numbers

2023· book-chapter· en· W3199013496 on OpenAlex
Dimitris Koukoulopoulos

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEMS Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsIrrational numberDiophantine approximationMathematicsEuler's totient functionConjectureRational numberAnalytic number theoryCombinatoricsRational pointReal numberRational functionEuler's formulaDiscrete mathematicsDiophantine equationPure mathematicsMathematical analysisAlgebraic numberGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given quantities $\Delta\_{1},\Delta\_{2},\dots \geqslant 0$, a fundamental problem in Diophantine approximation is to understand which irrational numbers $x$ have infinitely many reduced rational approximations $a/q$ such that $|x-a/q|<\Delta\_{q}$. Depending on the choice of $\Delta\_{q}$ and of $x$, this question may be very hard. However, Duffin and Schaeffer conjectured in 1941 that if we assume a “metric” point of view, the question is governed by a simple zero–one law: writing $\varphi$ for Euler’s totient function, we either have $\sum\_{q=1}^{\infty }\varphi (q)\Delta\_{q}=\infty$ and then almost all irrational numbers (in the Lebesgue sense) are approximable, or $\sum\_{q=1}^{\infty }\varphi (q)\Delta\_{q}<\infty$ and almost no irrationals are approximable. We will present the history of the Duffin–Schaeffer conjecture and the main ideas behind the recent work of Koukoulopoulos–Maynard that settled it.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.184 · 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