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].     

Interpolation and amalgamation properties in varieties of equivalential algebras

Important positive as well as negative results on interpolation property in fragments of the intuitionistic propositional logic (INT) were obtained by J. I. Zucker in [6]. He proved that the interpolation theorem holds in purely implicational fragment of INT. He also gave an example of a fragment of INT for which interpolation fails. This fragment is determined by the constant falsum (), well known connectives: implication () and conjunction (), and by a ternary connective defined as follows: (p, q, r)= ^df (pq)(pr).Extending this result of J. I. Zucker, G. R. Renardel de Lavalette proved in [5] that there are continuously many fragments of INT without the interpolation property.This paper is meant to continue the research mentioned above. To be more precise, its aim is to answer questions concerning interpolation and amalgamation properties in varieties of equivalential algebras, particularly in the variety determined by the purely equivalential fragment of INT.     

Q-ultrafilters and normal ultrafilters in B-algebras

The first part of the paper deals with some subclasses of B-algebras and their applications to the semantics of SCI _B , the Boolean strengthening of the sentential calculus with identity (SCI). In the second part a generalization of the McKinsey-Tarski construction of well-connected topological Boolean, algebras to the class of B-algebras is given.     

Ideal objects as models in science

Three main concepts of model in science are distinguished: (1) semantical model of a theory; (2) real model of another real thing; (3) mathematical model of a real thing. The last concept is the most important for the empirical sciences. The mathematical model is not identical with a theory: it is an ideal object which is directly described by the theory. We have here an intermediate level between reality and theory.     

From the Profession

Studies in East European Thought -     

Deontic logic and possible worlds semantics: A historical sketch

This paper describes and compares the first step in modern semantic theory for deontic logic which appeared in works of Stig Kanger, Jaakko Hintikka, Richard Montague and Saul Kripke in late 50s and early 60s. Moreover, some further developments as well as systematizations are also noted.     

An extension of the deontic calculus DSC1

The chief aim of the paper is to extend the calculusDSC ₁ (see [4]) in such a way as to satisfy all the requirements listed in [4] as well as a further stipulation — called ‘the principle of uninvolvement’ — to the effect that neither deontic compatibility nor deontic incompatibility of codes (see [2]) should be presupposed in deontic logic.