What is Nominalistic Mereology?

Hybrid languages are introduced in order to evaluate the strength of “minimal” mereologies with relatively strong frame definability properties. Appealing to a robust form of nominalism, I claim that one investigated language $\mathcal {H}_{\textsf {m}}$ is maximally acceptable for nominalistic mereology. In an extension $\mathcal {H}_{\textsf {gem}}$ of $\mathcal {H}_{\textsf {m}}$ , a modal analog for the classical systems of Leonard and Goodman (J Symb Log 5:45–55, 1940) and Le?niewski (1916) is introduced and shown to be complete with respect to 0-deleted Boolean algebras. We characterize the formulas of first-order logic invariant for $\mathcal {H}_{\textsf {gem}}$ -bisimulations.     

Continuous Orthogonal Complement Functions and Distribution-Free Goodness of Fit Tests in Moment Structure Analysis

It is shown that for any full column rank matrix X ₀ with more rows than columns there is a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ of X ₀ and a continuous function f on $\mathcal{N}$ such that f(X) is an orthogonal complement of X for all X in $\mathcal{N}$ . This is used to derive a distribution free goodness of fit test for covariance structure analysis. This test was proposed some time ago and is extensively used. Unfortunately, there is an error in the proof that the proposed test statistic has an asymptotic χ ² distribution. This is a potentially serious problem, without a proof the test statistic may not, in fact, be asymptoticly χ ². The proof, however, is easily fixed using a continuous orthogonal complement function. Similar problems arise in other applications where orthogonal complements are used. These can also be resolved by using continuous orthogonal complement functions.     

Dynamic Topological Completeness for

Dynamic topological logic (DTL) combines topological and temporalmodalities to express asymptotic properties of dynamic systemson topological spaces. A dynamic topological model is a tripleX ,f , V , where X is a topological space, f : X X a continuousfunction and V a truth valuation assigning subsets of X to propositionalvariables. Valid formulas are those that are true in every model,independently of X or f. A natural problem that arises is toidentify the logics obtained on familiar spaces, such as . It [9] it was shown that any satisfiable formulacould be satisfied in some for n large enough, but the question of how the logic varieswith n remained open. In this paper we prove that any fragment of DTL that is completefor locally finite Kripke frames is complete for . This includes DTL; it also includes some largerfragments, such as DTL₁, where "henceforth" may not appear inthe scope of a topological operator. We show that satisfiabilityof any formula of our language in a locally finite Kripke frameimplies satisfiability in by constructing continuous, open maps from the plane intoarbitrary locally finite Kripke frames, which give us a typeof bisimulation. We also show that the results cannot be extendedto arbitrary formulas of DTL by exhibiting a formula which isvalid in but not in arbitrarytopological spaces.     

Theories with the Independence Property

A first-order theory T{{\mathcal T}} has the Independence Property provided T   \vdash (Q)(FT F₁ ú. . .úF_n){{{\mathcal T} \, \, \vdash (Q)(\Phi \Rightarrow {\Phi_1} \vee.\,.\,.\vee {\Phi_n})}} implies T   \vdash (Q)(FT F_i){{{\mathcal T} \, \, \vdash (Q)(\Phi \Rightarrow {\Phi_i})}} for some i whenever F,F₁, . . . ,F_n{{\Phi,\Phi_1,\,.\,.\,.\,,\Phi_n}} are formulae of a suitable type and (Q) is any quantifier sequence. Variants of this property have been noticed for some time in logic programming and in linear programming.     

On Birkhoff’s Common Abstraction Problem

In his milestone textbook Lattice Theory, Garrett Birkhoff challenged his readers to develop a ??common abstraction?? that includes Boolean algebras and latticeordered groups as special cases. In this paper, after reviewing the past attempts to solve the problem, we provide our own answer by selecting as common generalization of ${\mathcal{B} \mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{L} \mathcal{G}}$ their join ${\mathcal{B} \mathcal{A} \vee \mathcal{L} \mathcal{G}}$ in the lattice of subvarieties of ${\mathcal{F} \mathcal{L}}$ (the variety of FL-algebras); we argue that such a solution is optimal under several respects and we give an explicit equational basis for ${\mathcal{B} \mathcal{A} \vee \mathcal{L} \mathcal{G}}$ relative to ${\mathcal{F} \mathcal{L}}$ . Finally, we prove a Holland-type representation theorem for a variety of FL-algebras containing ${\mathcal{B} \mathcal{A} \vee \mathcal{L} \mathcal{G}}$ .     

The Church–Fitch knowability paradox in the light of structural proof theory

Anti-realist epistemic conceptions of truth imply what is called the knowability principle: All truths are possibly known. The principle can be formalized in a bimodal propositional logic, with an alethic modality ${\diamondsuit}$ and an epistemic modality ${\mathcal{K}}$ , by the axiom scheme ${A \supset \diamondsuit \mathcal{K} A}$ (KP). The use of classical logic and minimal assumptions about the two modalities lead to the paradoxical conclusion that all truths are known, ${A \supset \mathcal{K} A}$ (OP). A Gentzen-style reconstruction of the Church–Fitch paradox is presented following a labelled approach to sequent calculi. First, a cut-free system for classical (resp. intuitionistic) bimodal logic is introduced as the logical basis for the Church–Fitch paradox and the relationships between ${\mathcal {K}}$ and ${\diamondsuit}$ are taken into account. Afterwards, by exploiting the structural properties of the system, in particular cut elimination, the semantic frame conditions that correspond to KP are determined and added in the form of a block of nonlogical inference rules. Within this new system for classical and intuitionistic “knowability logic”, it is possible to give a satisfactory cut-free reconstruction of the Church–Fitch derivation and to confirm that OP is only classically derivable, but neither intuitionistically derivable nor intuitionistically admissible. Finally, it is shown that in classical knowability logic, the Church–Fitch derivation is nothing else but a fallacy and does not represent a real threat for anti-realism.     

Completeness of S4 for the Lebesgue Measure Algebra

We prove completeness of the propositional modal logic S4 for the measure algebra based on the Lebesgue-measurable subsets of the unit interval, [0, 1]. In recent talks, Dana Scott introduced a new measure-based semantics for the standard propositional modal language with Boolean connectives and necessity and possibility operators, ^[¯]\Box and \Diamond\Diamond. Propositional modal formulae are assigned to Lebesgue-measurable subsets of the real interval [0, 1], modulo sets of measure zero. Equivalence classes of Lebesgue-measurable subsets form a measure algebra, M\mathcal M, and we add to this a non-trivial interior operator constructed from the frame of ‘open’ elements—elements in M\mathcal M with an open representative. We prove completeness of the modal logic S4 for the algebra M\mathcal M. A corollary to the main result is that non-theorems of S4 can be falsified at each point in a subset of the real interval [0, 1] of measure arbitrarily close to 1. A second corollary is that Intuitionistic propositional logic (IPC) is complete for the frame of open elements in M\mathcal M.     

A gentzen system for conditional logic

Conditional logic is the deductive system , where is the set of propositional connectives {, ,} and is the structural finitary consequence relation on the absolutely free algebra that preserves degrees of truth over the structure of truth values C, . HereC is the non-commutative regular extension of the 2-element Boolean algebra to 3 truth values {t, u, f}, andf<u<t. In this paper we give a Gentzen type axiomatization for conditional logic.Presented byJan Zygmunt     

Matching Topological and Frame Products of Modal Logics

The simplest combination of unimodal logics \({\mathrm{L}_1 \rm and \mathrm{L}_2}\) into a bimodal logic is their fusion, \({\mathrm{L}_1 \otimes \mathrm{L}_2}\), axiomatized by the theorems of \({\mathrm{L}_1 \rm for \square_1 \rm and of \mathrm{L}_2 \rm for \square_{2}}\). Shehtman introduced combinations that are not only bimodal, but two-dimensional: he defined 2-d Cartesian products of 1-d Kripke frames, using these Cartesian products to define the frame product\({\mathrm{L}_1 \times \mathrm{L}_2 \rm of \mathrm{L}_1 \rm and \mathrm{L}_2}\). Van Benthem, Bezhanishvili, ten Cate and Sarenac generalized Shehtman’s idea and introduced the topological product\({\mathrm{L}_1 \times_{t}\mathrm{L}_2}\), using Cartesian products of topological spaces rather than of Kripke frames. Frame products have been extensively studied, but much less is known about topological products. The goal of the current paper is to give necessary and sufficient conditions for the topological product to match the frame product, for Kripke complete extensions of \({\mathrm{S}4: \mathrm{L}_1 \times_t \mathrm{L}_2 = \mathrm{L}_1 \times \mathrm{L}_2 \rm iff \mathrm{L}_1 \supsetneq \mathrm{S}5 \rm or \mathrm{L}_2 \supsetneq \mathrm{S}5 \rm or \mathrm{L}_1, \mathrm{L}_2 = \mathrm{S}5}\).     

Topological-Frame Products of Modal Logics

The simplest bimodal combination of unimodal logics \(\text {L} _1\) and \(\text {L} _2\) is their fusion, \(\text {L} _1 \otimes \text {L} _2\), axiomatized by the theorems of \(\text {L} _1\) for \(\square _1\) and of \(\text {L} _2\) for \(\square _2\), and the rules of modus ponens, necessitation for \(\square _1\) and for \(\square _2\), and substitution. Shehtman introduced the frame product \(\text {L} _1 \times \text {L} _2\), as the logic of the products of certain Kripke frames: these logics are two-dimensional as well as bimodal. Van Benthem, Bezhanishvili, ten Cate and Sarenac transposed Shehtman’s idea to the topological semantics and introduced the topological product \(\text {L} _1 \times _t \text {L} _2\), as the logic of the products of certain topological spaces. For almost all well-studies logics, we have \(\text {L} _1 \otimes \text {L} _2 \subsetneq \text {L} _1 \times \text {L} _2\), for example, \(\text {S4} \otimes \text {S4} \subsetneq \text {S4} \times \text {S4} \). Van Benthem et al. show, by contrast, that \(\text {S4} \times _t \text {S4} = \text {S4} \otimes \text {S4} \). It is straightforward to define the product of a topological space and a frame: the result is a topologized frame, i.e., a set together with a topology and a binary relation. In this paper, we introduce topological-frame products \(\text {L} _1 \times _ tf \text {L} _2\) of modal logics, providing a complete axiomatization of \(\text {S4} \times _ tf \text {L} \), whenever \(\text {L} \) is a Kripke complete Horn axiomatizable extension of the modal logic D: these extensions include \(\text {T} , \text {S4} \) and \(\text {S5} \), but not \(\text {K} \) or \(\text {K4} \). We leave open the problem of axiomatizing \(\text {S4} \times _ tf \text {K} \), \(\text {S4} \times _ tf \text {K4} \), and other related logics. When \(\text {L} = \text {S4} \), our result confirms a conjecture of van Benthem et al. concerning the logic of products of Alexandrov spaces with arbitrary topological spaces.     

The Power of Belnap: Sequent Systems for <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">SIXTEEN</Emphasis><Subscript><Emphasis Type="Bold">3</Emphasis></Subscript>

The trilattice SIXTEEN₃\textit{SIXTEEN}_3 is a natural generalization of the well-known bilattice FOUR₂\textit{FOUR}_2. Cut-free, sound and complete sequent calculi for truth entailment and falsity entailment in SIXTEEN₃\textit{SIXTEEN}_3 are presented.     

Dominions in quasivarieties of universal algebras

The dominion of a subalgebra H in an universal algebra A (in a class ) is the set of all elements such that for all homomorphisms if f, g coincide on H, then a^f = a^g. We investigate the connection between dominions and quasivarieties. We show that if a class is closed under ultraproducts, then the dominion in is equal to the dominion in a quasivariety generated by . Also we find conditions when dominions in a universal algebra form a lattice and study this lattice.Special issue of Studia Logica: Algebraic Theory of Quasivarieties Presented by M. E. Adams, K. V. Adaricheva, W. Dziobiak, and A. V. Kravchenko     

Moral Conflicts between Groups of Agents

Two groups of agents, and , face a moral conflict if has a moral obligation and has a moral obligation, such that these obligations cannot both be fulfilled. We study moral conflicts using a multi-agent deontic logic devised to represent reasoning about sentences like ‘In the interest of group of agents, group of agents ought to see to it that .’ We provide a formal language and a consequentialist semantics. An illustration of our semantics with an analysis of the Prisoner’s Dilemma follows. Next, necessary and sufficient conditions are given for (1) the possibility that a single group of agents faces a moral conflict, for (2) the possibility that two groups of agents face a moral conflict within a single moral code, and for (3) the possibility that two groups of agents face a moral conflict.     

Finite basis problems and results for quasivarieties

Let be a finite collection of finite algebras of finite signature such that SP( ) has meet semi-distributive congruence lattices. We prove that there exists a finite collection ₁ of finite algebras of the same signature, , such that SP( ₁) is finitely axiomatizable.We show also that if , then SP( ₁) is finitely axiomatizable. We offer new proofs of two important finite basis theorems of D. Pigozzi and R. Willard. Our actual results are somewhat more general than this abstract indicates.While working on this paper, the first author was partially supported by the Hungarian National Foundation for Scientific Research (OTKA) grant no. T37877 and the second author was supported by the US National Science Foundation grant no. DMS-0245622.Special issue of Studia Logica: Algebraic Theory of Quasivarieties Presented by M. E. Adams, K. V. Adaricheva, W. Dziobiak, and A. V. Kravchenko     

A Second Pretabular Classical Relevance Logic

Pretabular logics are those that lack finite characteristic matrices, although all of their normal proper extensions do have some finite characteristic matrix. Although for Anderson and Belnap’s relevance logic R, there exists an uncountable set of pretabular extensions (Swirydowicz in J Symb Log 73(4):1249–1270, 2008), for the classical relevance logic \( \hbox {KR} = \hbox {R} + \{(A\,\, \& \sim A)\rightarrow B\}\) there has been known so far a pretabular extension: \({\mathcal L}\) (Galminas and Mersch in Stud Log 100:1211–1221, 2012). In Section 1 of this paper, we introduce some history of pretabularity and some relevance logics and their algebras. In Section 2, we introduce a new pretabular logic, which we shall name \({\mathcal M}\), and which is a neighbor of \({\mathcal L}\), in that it is an extension of KR. Also in this section, an algebraic semantics, ‘\({\mathcal M}\)-algebras’, will be introduced and the characterization of \({\mathcal M}\) to the set of finite \({\mathcal M}\)-algebras will be shown. In Section 3, the pretabularity of \({\mathcal M}\) will be proved.     

Presupposition and the a priori

This paper argues for and explores the implications of the following epistemological principle for knowability a priori (with ‘ $\mathcal{K}_\mathcal{A}$ ’ abbreviating ‘it is knowable a priori that’).

(AK) For all ?, ψ such that ? semantically presupposes ψ: if $\mathcal{K}_\mathcal{A}\phi, \,\mathcal{K}_\mathcal{A}\psi .$

Well-known arguments for the contingent a priori and a priori knowledge of logical truth founder when the semantic presuppositions of the putative items of knowledge are made explicit. Likewise, certain kinds of analytic truth turn out to carry semantic presuppositions that make them ineligible as items of a priori knowledge. On a happier note, I argue that (AK) offers an appealing, theory-neutral explanation of the a posteriori character of certain necessary identities, as well as an interesting rationalization for a commonplace linguistic maneuver in philosophical work on the a priori.     

Types of \mathsf{I} -Free Hereditary Right Maximal Terms

The implicational fragment of the relevance logic “ticket entailment” is closely related to the so-called hereditary right maximal terms. I prove that the terms that need to be considered as inhabitants of the types which are theorems of T_→ are in normal form and built in all but one case from and only. As a tool in the proof ordered term rewriting systems are introduced. Based on the main theorem I define FIT_→ – a Fitch-style calculus (related to FT_→) for the implicational fragment of ticket entailment.     

Generalization of Scott's formula for retractions from generalized Alexandroff's cube

In the paper [2] the following theorem is shown: Theorem (Th. 3,5, [2]), If α=0 or δ=∞ or α?δ, then a closure space X is an absolute extensor for the category of 〈α, δ〉 -closure spaces iff a contraction of X is the closure space of all 〈α, δ〉-filters in an 〈α, δ〉-semidistributive lattice. In the case when α=ω and δ=∞, this theorem becomes Scott's theorem: Theorem ([7]). A topological space X is an absolute extensor for the category of all topological spaces iff a contraction of X is a topological space of “Scott's open sets” in a continuous lattice. On the other hand, when α=0 and δ=ω, this theorem becomes Jankowski's theorem: Theorem ([4]). A closure space X is an absolute extensor for the category of all closure spaces satisfying the compactness theorem iff a contraction of X is a closure space of all filters in a complete Heyting lattice. But for separate cases of α and δ, the Theorem 3.5 from [2] is proved using essentialy different methods. In this paper it is shown that this theorem can be proved using, for retraction, one uniform formula. Namely it is proved that if α= 0 or δ= ∞ or α ? δ and \(F_{\alpha ,\delta } \left( L \right) \subseteq B_{\alpha ,\delta }^\mathfrak{n} \) and if L is an 〈α, δ〉-semidistributive lattice, then the function $$r:{\text{ }}B_{\alpha ,\delta }^\mathfrak{n} \to F_{\alpha ,\delta } \left( L \right)$$ such that for x ε ? ( \(\mathfrak{n}\) ): (*) $$r\left( x \right) = inf_L \left\{ {l \in L|\left( {\forall A \subseteq L} \right)x \in C\left( A \right) \Rightarrow l \in C\left( A \right)} \right\}$$ defines retraction, where C is a proper closure operator for \(B_{\alpha ,\delta }^\mathfrak{n} \) . It is also proved that the formula (*) defines retraction for all 〈α, δ〉, whenever L is an 〈α, δ〉 -pseudodistributive lattice. Moreover it is proved that when α=ω and δ=∞, the formula (*) defines identical retraction to the formula given in [7], and when α = 0 and δ=ω, the formula (*) defines identical retraction to the formula given in [4].     

Ensuring Positiveness of the Scaled Difference Chi-square Test Statistic

A scaled difference test statistic [(T)\tilde]_d\tilde{T}{}_{d} that can be computed from standard software of structural equation models (SEM) by hand calculations was proposed in Satorra and Bentler (Psychometrika 66:507–514, 2001). The statistic [(T)\tilde]_d\tilde{T}_{d} is asymptotically equivalent to the scaled difference test statistic [`(T)]<sub>d</sub>\bar{T}_{d} introduced in Satorra (Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis: A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker, pp. 233–247, 2000), which requires more involved computations beyond standard output of SEM software. The test statistic [(T)\tilde]<sub>d</sub>\tilde{T}_{d} has been widely used in practice, but in some applications it is negative due to negativity of its associated scaling correction. Using the implicit function theorem, this note develops an improved scaling correction leading to a new scaled difference statistic [`(T)]_d\bar{T}_{d} that avoids negative chi-square values.