MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405949452 · doi:10.1017/jsl.2024.69

CATEGORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FORMALIZED CONDENSED MATHEMATICS

2024· article· en· W4405949452 on OpenAlexafffund
Dagur Tómas Ásgeirsson, Riccardo Brasca, Nikolas Kuhn, Filippo Alberto Edoardo Nuccio Mortarino Majno Di Capriglio, Adam Topaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Symbolic Logic · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNorges ForskningsrådDanmarks GrundforskningsfondAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMathematicsSheafHausdorff spaceCategorical variableTopological spaceGeneralizationCategory of topological spacesUrysohn and completely Hausdorff spacesTopology (electrical circuits)Pure mathematicsSpace (punctuation)Compact-open topologyAlgebra over a fieldHausdorff measureComputer scienceTopological tensor productCombinatoricsHausdorff dimensionMathematical analysisFunctional analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Condensed mathematics, developed by Clausen and Scholze over the last few years, proposes a generalization of topology with better categorical properties. It replaces the concept of a topological space by that of a condensed set, which can be defined as a sheaf for the coherent topology on a certain category of compact Hausdorff spaces. In this case, the sheaf condition has a fairly simple explicit description, which arises from studying the relationship between the coherent, regular, and extensive topologies. In this paper, we establish this relationship under minimal assumptions on the category, going beyond the case of compact Hausdorff spaces. Along the way, we also provide a characterization of sheaves and covering sieves for these categories. All results in this paper have been fully formalized in the Lean proof assistant.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 Symbolic LogicSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207