MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406230962 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04026

Counting the number of integral fixed points of a discrete dynamical system with applications from arithmetic statistics, I

2024· preprint· en· W4406230962 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brian Kintu

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMathematicsArithmeticStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this first article of a multi-part series, we inspect a surprising relationship between the set of fixed points of a polynomial map $φ_{d, c}$ defined by $φ_{d, c}(z) = z^d + c$ for all $c, z \in \mathbb{Z}$ and the coefficient $c$, where $d > 2$ is an integer. Inspired greatly by the elegant counting problems along with the very striking results of Bhargava-Shankar-Tsimerman and their collaborators in arithmetic statistics, and also by interesting point-counting result of Narkiewicz on rational periodic points of any odd degree map $φ_{d, c}$ in arithmetic dynamics, we then first prove that for any prime $p\geq 3$, the average number of distinct integral fixed points of any $φ_{p, c}$ modulo $p$ is $3$ or $0$ as $c$ tends to infinity. Inspired further by a conjecture of Hutz on rational periodic points of $φ_{p-1, c}$ for any prime $p\geq 5$ in arithmetic dynamics, we then also prove that the average number of distinct integral fixed points of any $φ_{p-1, c}$ modulo $p$ is $1$ or $2$ or $0$ as $c\to \infty$. Finally, we then apply density and number field-counting results from arithmetic statistics, and as a result obtain counting and statistical results on the irreducible integer polynomials and number fields arising naturally in our polynomial discrete dynamical settings.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207