MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417100932 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v16n3p46

An Extension to Fermat's Pythagorean Triangle Area Proof, and Further Doubt to His Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

2024· article· W4417100932 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPythagorean theoremPythagorean tripleFermat's Last TheoremExtension (predicate logic)Analytic proofCube (algebra)Calculus (dental)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pierre de Fermat proved that the area of a Pythagorean triangle is not a perfect square. If he also had a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, then he could have easily extended his triangle area proof to show that primitive Pythagorean triangles could not have an area that is a perfect cube or higher power. Because there is no record of this, we might suppose that he did not ultimately accept that he had a valid proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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 venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicMathematics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207