MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132939519

The Real Subalgebras of $\mathfrak{so}_4(\mathbb{C})$ and $G_{2(2)}$

2023· dissertation· W7132939519 on OpenAlexaff
Thaddeus Zachary Janisse

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Geometry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartan matrixReal formCartan decompositionCartan subalgebraKilling formLie algebraRepresentation of a Lie groupSimple (philosophy)Nilpotent
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classifying the subalgebras of a simple Lie algebra is a pursuit that stretches back to the work of Cartan on representations of simple Lie algebras. Mal'cev, in classifying orthogonal and symplectic representations of simple Lie algebras also found the semisimple subalgebras of $B_n, C_n,$ and $D_n$. Following that, Dynkin and Minchenko classified the semisimple subalgebras of the complex exceptional Lie algebras. We investigate the real subalgebras of a number of rank 2 Lie algebras: $\mathfrak{so}_4(\mathbb{C})$, its real forms, and the split real form of $G_2$, $G_{2(2)}$. In this thesis, we classify the real subalgebras of these Lie algebras up to inner automorphism (i.e., up to the adjoint action of the corresponding Lie group). For the matrix algebras above, we largely proceed with the help of copious amounts of linear algebra. For $G_{2(2)}$, we take advantage of the Cartan decomposition $G_{2(2)} = \mathfrak{k} \oplus \mathfrak{p}$, where $\mathfrak{k}$ is a compact subalgebra, to identify the semisimple and Levi-decomposable subalgebras of $G_{2(2)}$. To find the solvable subalgebras, we use the classifications of semisimple and nilpotent elements of $G_{2(2)}$, as well as our own classification of Jordan elements, to build nilpotent and solvable subalgebras.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.352 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicAdvanced Algebra and GeometryFrench-language works237,207