Triple
T9809567
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Herbrand's theorem |
E238234
|
entity |
| Predicate | instanceOf |
P0
|
FINISHED |
| Object | result in proof theory |
C26889
|
CONCEPT FINISHED |
How this triple was built (1 step)
Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.
CD
Concept disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target class: result in proof theory Context triple: [Herbrand's theorem, instanceOf, result in proof theory]
-
A.
result in stability theory
A result in stability theory is a formal theorem or proposition that characterizes when and how solutions of a system (often differential or dynamical) remain bounded, converge, or behave predictably under small perturbations or over time.
-
B.
automated theorem proving technique
An automated theorem proving technique is a systematic, algorithmic method used by computer programs to derive logical conclusions and verify the validity of mathematical or logical statements without human intervention.
-
C.
result in probability theory
In probability theory, a result is a formally stated and proven fact—such as a theorem, lemma, or corollary—that describes a property or relationship involving probabilistic concepts like random variables, events, or distributions.
-
D.
result in real analysis
In real analysis, a result is a proven mathematical statement—such as a theorem, lemma, proposition, or corollary—that establishes a specific property or relationship about real-valued functions, sequences, sets, or structures on the real numbers.
-
E.
result in combinatorial game theory
In combinatorial game theory, a result is a formal outcome or conclusion—such as a theorem, lemma, or classification—that characterizes the behavior, value, or winning conditions of one or more games under specified rules.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (1 batch)
The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.
| Step | Stage | Batch ID | Status | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| creating | Elicitation | batch_69ca84defac48190abc1148804f184c1 |
completed | March 30, 2026, 2:12 p.m. |
Created at: March 30, 2026, 8:29 p.m.