MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297986018 · doi:10.1145/1166109.1166114

The strength of replacement in weak arithmetic

2006· article· en· W4297986018 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computational Logic · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsClass (philosophy)Bounded functionDiscrete mathematicsComplexity classQuantifier (linguistics)AxiomInteger (computer science)PolynomialCombinatoricsTime complexityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The replacement (or collection or choice) axiom scheme BB(Γ) asserts bounded quantifier exchange as follows: ∀i < |a| ∃x < aϕ(i,x) → ∃w ∀i < |a|ϕ(i,[w]i), for ϕ in the class Γ of formulas. The theory S12 proves the scheme BB(Σb1), and thus in S12 every Σb1 formula is equivalent to a strict Σb1 formula (in which all non-sharply-bounded quantifiers are in front). Here we prove (sometimes subject to an assumption) that certain theories weaker than S12 do not prove either BB(Σb1) or BB(Σb0). We show (unconditionally) that V 0 does not prove BB(Σb0), where V0 (essentially IΣ1,b0) is the two-sorted theory associated with the complexity class AC0. We show that PV does not prove BB(Σb0), assuming that integer factoring is not possible in probabilistic polynomial time. Johannsen and Pollett introduced the theory C02 associated with the complexity class TC0, and later introduced an apparently weaker theory Δb1 − CR for the same class. We use our methods to show that Δb1 − CR is indeed weaker than C02, assuming that RSA is secure against probabilistic polynomial time attack.Our main tool is the KPT witnessing theorem.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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