MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389951301 · doi:10.1353/rss.2023.a914939

On The Use of Dots in Principia Mathematica

2023· article· en· W4389951301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bernard Linsky

Bibliographic record

VenueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjunction (astronomy)AssertionNotationComputer sciencePunctuationScope (computer science)Programming languageCalculus (dental)Algebra over a fieldMathematicsArtificial intelligencePure mathematicsArithmeticPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The distinctive squared dots in Principia Mathematica have two uses, to replace parentheses or brackets to indicate the scope of connectives and operators as well as to symbolize the sentential connective “and”. The explanation of the use of dots in the Introduction shows that the punctuation dots express conjunction by symbolizing the juxtaposition of formulas, following Peano, and so they are always used as punctuation. This paper thus supports Turing’s assertion that conjunction in Principia is expressed by juxtaposition.This analysis avoids Curry’s proposal that an “auxiliary” connective for conjunction should be involved in interpreting the dot notation.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell StudiesSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207