MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133023820

Non-chainable Continua and Lelek's Problem

2011· dissertation· en· W7133023820 on OpenAlexafffund
Logan Cedric Hoehn

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topology and Set Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsUncountable setDisjoint setsCounterexampleNowhere dense setInverse limitCompact spaceJordan curve theoremZero (linguistics)InverseHomeomorphism (graph theory)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The set of compact connected metric spaces (continua) can be divided into classes according to the complexity of their descriptions as inverse limits of polyhedra. The simplest such class is the collection of chainable continua, i.e. those which are inverse limits of arcs. In 1964, A. Lelek introduced a notion which is related to chainability, called span zero. A continuum X has span zero if any two continuous maps from any other continuum to X with identical ranges have a coincidence point. Lelek observed that every chainable continuum has span zero; he later asked whether span zero is in fact a characterization of chainability. In this thesis, we construct a non-chainable continuum in the plane which has span zero, thus providing a counterexample for what is now known as Lelek's Problem in continuum theory. Moreover, we show that the plane contains an uncountable family of pairwise disjoint copies of this continuum. We discuss connections with the classical problem of determining up to homeomorphism all the homogeneous continua in the plane.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.385
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicAdvanced Topology and Set TheoryFrench-language works237,207