MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406151031 · doi:10.4153/s0008439524000894

Buried points of plane continua

2025· article· en· W4406151031 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David S. Lipham, Jan van Mill, Murat Tuncalı, Ed Tymchatyn, Kirsten I. S. Valkenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsNowhere dense setDisjoint setsUncountable setContinuum hypothesisPlane (geometry)Totally disconnected spaceBoundary (topology)Countable setPure mathematicsCombinatoricsGeometrySet (abstract data type)Mathematical analysisLocally compact space

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sets on the boundary of a complementary component of a continuum in the plane have been of interest since the early 1920s. Curry and Mayer defined the buried points of a plane continuum to be the points in the continuum which were not on the boundary of any complementary component. Motivated by their investigations of Julia sets, they asked what happens if the set of buried points of a plane continuum is totally disconnected and nonempty. Curry, Mayer, and Tymchatyn showed that in that case the continuum is Suslinian, i.e., it does not contain an uncountable collection of nondegenerate pairwise disjoint subcontinua. In an answer to a question of Curry et al., van Mill and Tuncali constructed a plane continuum whose buried point set was totally disconnected, nonempty, and one-dimensional at each point of a countably infinite set. In this paper, we show that the van Mill–Tuncali example was the best possible in the sense that whenever the buried set is totally disconnected, it is one-dimensional at each of at most countably many points. As a corollary, we find that the buried set cannot be almost zero-dimensional unless it is zero-dimensional. We also construct locally connected van Mill–Tuncali type examples.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207