Annotation Theories over Finite Graphs

In the current paper we consider theories with vocabulary containing a number of binary and unary relation symbols. Binary relation symbols represent labeled edges of a graph and unary relations represent unique annotations of the graph’s nodes. Such theories, which we call annotation theories, can be used in many applications, including the formalization of argumentation, approximate reasoning, semantics of logic programs, graph coloring, etc. We address a number of problems related to annotation theories over finite models, including satisfiability, querying problem, specification of preferred models and model checking problem. We show that most of considered problems are NPTime- or co-NPTime-complete. In order to reduce the complexity for particular theories, we use second-order quantifier elimination. To our best knowledge none of existing methods works in the case of annotation theories. We then provide a new second-order quantifier elimination method for stratified theories, which is successful in the considered cases. The new result subsumes many other results, including those of [2, 28, 21].     

The Cognitive Relation in a Formal Setting

This paper proposes a formal framework for the cognitive relation understood as an ordered pair with the cognitive subject and object of cognition as its members. The cognitive subject is represented as consisting of a language, conequence relation and a stock of accepted theories, and the object as a model of those theories. This language allows a simple formulation of the realism/anti-realism controversy. In particular, Tarski’s undefinability theorem gives a philosophical argument for realism in epistemology. Special Issue Formal Epistemology II. Edited by Branden Fitelson     

Regulatory Focus in Materialists and Its Consequences for Their Well-Being

Journal of Happiness Studies - The article concentrates on regulatory focus (promotion and prevention) as a factor involved in the relationships between materialism and well-being alongside two...     

Beyond Political Theology and its Liquidation: From Theopolitical Monotheism to Trinitarianism

One of the central theological challenges facing Erik Peterson was to help the mid‐twentieth century Catholic Church define its relationship with the wider world. He responded by advancing a distinctive understanding of the ‘polis.’ In this essay, I critically analyze Peterson's central and perhaps best known proposal about how the Church ought to negotiate the modern world — encapsulated in his expression, the ‘liquidation of political theology.’ I contend that Peterson's proposal is not congruent with a right understanding of patristic trinitarian monarchy, although a view that stands in sharp contrast to that of Carl Schmitt. Notwithstanding the effectiveness of Peterson's critique of Schmitt's political theology, I argue that Peterson nonetheless fails in his exposition of the thought of Gregory of Nazianzus and therefore in his interpretation of the role of the Church in what we have learned to call the ‘political’ and the ‘social.’ I conclude by outlining several ways that the Church today might take up the challenge of regaining a truly political thought, a new ekklesioteia, nourished by the monarchy of the triune God.     

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].