MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400722596 · doi:10.1016/j.jnt.2024.06.005

On non-Zariski density of (D,S)-integral points in forward orbits and the Subspace Theorem

2024· article· en· W4400722596 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan Grieve, Chatchai Noytaptim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Number Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalCarleton UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsSurjective functionAlgebraic number fieldSubspace topologyDivisor (algebraic geometry)Weierstrass factorization theoremPure mathematicsProjective varietyField (mathematics)Base (topology)Discrete mathematicsMathematical analysisFactorization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working over a base number field K, we study the attractive question of Zariski non-density for (D,S)-integral points in Of(x) the forward f-orbit of a rational point x∈X(K). Here, f:X→X is a regular surjective self-map for X a geometrically irreducible projective variety over K. Given a non-zero and effective f-quasi-polarizable Cartier divisor D on X and defined over K, our main result gives a sufficient condition, that is formulated in terms of the f-dynamics of D, for non-Zariski density of certain dynamically defined subsets of Of(x). For the case of (D,S)-integral points, this result gives a sufficient condition for non-Zariski density of integral points in Of(x). Our approach expands on that of Yasufuku, [13], building on earlier work of Silverman [11]. Our main result gives an unconditional form of the main results of [13]; the key arithmetic input to our main theorem is the Subspace Theorem of Schmidt in the generalized form that has been given by Ru and Vojta in [10] and expanded upon in [3] and [6].

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Number TheorySame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207