Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Ambiguous ideal classes and ambiguous ideals

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Cristian D. Gonzalez-Aviles

Number Theory · Submitted 1 Nov 2005

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim This paper is wrong and is therefore withdrawn.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDmath/0511023 (version 5)
Pith ID4V7GRFYO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationCristian D. Gonzalez-Aviles. "Ambiguous ideal classes and ambiguous ideals." arXiv:math/0511023 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/4V7GRFYO
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 1,532 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.64 · human participants 0.03 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.02 · compares with prior results 0.03 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v5. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

This paper is wrong and is therefore withdrawn.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 This paper is wrong and is therefore withdrawn. limitation 0.95 0.22 0.22 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 0.95 · evidence from argument 0.71.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v5
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

This paper is wrong and is therefore withdrawn.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.