MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Problem on Generation Sets Containing Fibonacci Numbers

2017· article· en· W4402831568 on OpenAlex
Danielle Cox, Karyn McLellan

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

Venue˜The œFibonacci quarterly · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Theories and Applications
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibonacci numberPisano periodMathematicsLucas numberFibonacci polynomialsCombinatoricsArithmeticDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the Sixteenth International Conference on Fibonacci Numbers and Their Applications the following problem was posed by Clark Kimberling:Let S be the set generated by these rules: Let 1 ∈ S and if x ∈ S, then 2x ∈ S and 1 — x ∈ S, so that S grows in generations: G1 = {1}, G2 = {0, 2}, G3 = {–1, 4}, ….Prove or disprove that each generation contains at least one Fibonacci number or its negative.In this paper we generalize the problem as follows. Let S be the set described above, S be a sequence and Ƥ the property that a generation contains a term of S or the negative of a term of S. We will show that when S is the Fibonacci sequence there are many generations that fail to have property Ƥ. Other sequences S will also be considered and shown to have at least one generation failing to have property Ƥ. The proportion of generations failing to have property Ƥ is also investigated.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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