空间-时间关联的中介共同表征结构:来自反转STEARC效应的证据

通过3个双任务实验(诱导任务和特征任务)探讨空间-时间联合编码(STEARC)效应的加工机制。实验1采用时间信息作为诱导任务材料,实验2采用空间信息作为诱导任务材料,在特征任务中都发现映射不一致组被试(看到过去/左侧刺激时按右键反应,看到未来/右侧刺激时按左键反应)出现反转STEARC效应,映射一致组被试表现出常规的STEARC效应,表明从时间信息加工到空间反应过程符合中介共同表征结构。实验3分离两种任务的反应方式(手动和眼动),发现不一致映射规则下,被试仍然表现出常规的STEARC效应,表明这种中介共同表征结构存在特定联结效应,即在不同反应器中出现时间和空间相互独立的表征结构。总体而言,研究支持空间-时间关联符合中介共同表征结构,并且这种关联中存在反应器特定联结效应。     

SUPERVALUATION FIXED-POINT LOGICS OF TRUTH

Michael Kremer defines fixed-point logics of truth based on Saul Kripke’s fixed point semantics for languages expressing their own truth concepts. Kremer axiomatizes the strong Kleene fixed-point logic of truth and the weak Kleene fixed-point logic of truth, but leaves the axiomatizability question open for the supervaluation fixed-point logic of truth and its variants. We show that the principal supervaluation fixed point logic of truth, when thought of as consequence relation, is highly complex: it is not even analytic. We also consider variants, engendered by a stronger notion of ‘fixed point’, and by variant supervaluation schemes. A ‘logic’ is often thought of, not as a consequence relation, but as a set of sentences – the sentences true on each interpretation. We axiomatize the supervaluation fixed-point logics so conceived.     

Frame Based Formulas for Intermediate Logics

In this paper we define the notion of frame based formulas. We show that the well-known examples of formulas arising from a finite frame, such as the Jankov-de Jongh formulas, subframe formulas and cofinal subframe formulas, are all particular cases of the frame based formulas. We give a criterion for an intermediate logic to be axiomatizable by frame based formulas and use this criterion to obtain a simple proof that every locally tabular intermediate logic is axiomatizable by Jankov-de Jongh formulas. We also show that not every intermediate logic is axiomatizable by frame based formulas. Presented by Johan van Benthem     

The Method of Socratic Proofs for Modal Propositional Logics: K5, S4.2, S4.3, S4F,S4R,S4M and G

The aim of this paper is to present the method of Socratic proofs for seven modal propositional logics: K5, S4.2, S4.3, S4M, S4F, S4R and G. This work is an extension of [10] where the method was presented for the most common modal propositional logics: K, D, T, KB, K4, S4 and S5. Presented by Jacek Malinowski     

On Definability of the Equality in Classes of Algebras with an Equivalence Relation

We present a finitary regularly algebraizable logic not finitely equivalential, for every similarity type. We associate to each of these logics a class of algebras with an equivalence relation, with the property that in this class, the identity is atomatically definable but not finitely atomatically definable. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

An O(n log n)-Space Decision Procedure for the Relevance Logic B+

In previous work we gave a new proof-theoretical method for establishing upper-bounds on the space complexity of the provability problem of modal and other propositional non-classical logics. Here we extend and refine these results to give an O(n log n)-space decision procedure for the basic positive relevance logic B⁺. We compute this upper-bound by first giving a sound and complete, cut-free, labelled sequent system for B⁺, and then establishing bounds on the application of the rules of this system.     

On the Existence of Continua of Logics Between Some Intermediate Predicate Logics

A method for constructing continua of logics squeezed between some intermediate predicate logics, developed by Suzuki [8], is modified and applied to intervals of the form [L, L+ ¬¬S], where Lis a predicate logic, Sis a closed predicate formula. This solves one of the problems from Suzuki's paper.     

Spiritual Need Six: Community Building

SUMMARY

Community building includes but is greater than providing fellowship. Community building promotes connection, belonging, and a sense of togetherness. Based upon the needs of older adults, community building is defined as an engagement that is mutually supportive and stimulating. Community building doesn't just happen naturally. There are important guidelines and categorization that assist in effective planning. Community building can happen any time a person is personally engaged with another and thus, with some intentionality, can happen at worship, committee meetings, as well as pot lucks and fun activities.