Cited by 8Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsNonlinear Dynamics and Pattern FormationEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Competitive Exclusion of Disjoint Hypercycles

Hofbauer, Josef·2002·Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie

Abstract

A conjecture of Eigen and Schuster (1979) concerning the competitive exclusion of disjoint hypercycles is finally proved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1524/zpch.2002.216.1.035

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hofbauer, J.
Affiliations
University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Hofbauer, Josef
Venue
Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie
Published
2002-01-01
Volume
216
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0044-3336 (ISSN-L)
  • 2196-7156
  • 0942-9352
OpenAlex
W2112901742
Cited by
8
References
4
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Nonlinear Dynamics and Pattern Formation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
competitive exclusion, autocatalytic sets, molecular evolution, replicator dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review