MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300960744 · doi:10.1017/s0004972722001009

ERDŐS–LIOUVILLE SETS

2022· article· en· W4300960744 on OpenAlexafffund
Taboka Chalebgwa, Sidney A. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsCardinality (data modeling)Subspace topologyReal numberTranscendental numberDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1844, Joseph Liouville proved the existence of transcendental numbers. He introduced the set $\mathcal L$ of numbers, now known as Liouville numbers, and showed that they are all transcendental. It is known that $\mathcal L$ has cardinality $\mathfrak {c}$ , the cardinality of the continuum, and is a dense $G_{\delta }$ subset of the set $\mathbb {R}$ of all real numbers. In 1962, Erdős proved that every real number is the sum of two Liouville numbers. In this paper, a set W of complex numbers is said to have the Erdős property if every real number is the sum of two numbers in W . The set W is said to be an Erdős–Liouville set if it is a dense subset of $\mathcal {L}$ and has the Erdős property. Each subset of $\mathbb {R}$ is assigned its subspace topology, where $\mathbb {R}$ has the euclidean topology. It is proved here that: (i) there exist $2^{\mathfrak {c}}$ Erdős–Liouville sets no two of which are homeomorphic; (ii) there exist $\mathfrak {c}$ Erdős–Liouville sets each of which is homeomorphic to $\mathcal {L}$ with its subspace topology and homeomorphic to the space of all irrational numbers; (iii) each Erdős–Liouville set L homeomorphic to $\mathcal {L}$ contains another Erdős–Liouville set $L'$ homeomorphic to $\mathcal {L}$ . Therefore, there is no minimal Erdős–Liouville set homeomorphic to $\mathcal {L}$ .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0230.000

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 head0.295
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Australian Mathematical SocietySame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207