We report a magnetization, magnetostriction, electrical resistivity, specific heat and neutron scattering study of a UNi 2/3 Rh 1/3 Al single crystal, a solid solution of an antiferromagnet UNiAl and a ferromagnet URhAl. The huge uniaxial magnetic anisotropy confining the principal magnetic response to the c axis in the parent compounds persists also for the solid solution. The magnetization curve at 1.6 K has a pronounced S shape with an inflection at 12 T. The temperature dependence of magnetic susceptibility exhibits (...) a maximum around 10 K and is magnetic history dependent at lower temperatures where the resistivity increases linearly with decreasing temperature. The low-temperature „ anomaly is removed in a magnetic field applied along c , which yields a large negative magnetoresistance amounting to m 46 z in 14 T . The C/T values exhibit a minimum around 12 K and below 8 K they become nearly constant , which is strongly affected by magnetic fields. Neutron scattering data confirm a non-magnetic ground state of UNi 2/3 Rh 1/3 Al. The bulk properties at low temperatures are tentatively attributed to the freezing of U magnetic moments with antiferromagnetic correlations. The additional intensities detected on top of nuclear reflections in neutron diffraction in a magnetic field applied along c are found to be proportional to the field-induced magnetization, which reflects field-induced ferromagnetic coupling of U magnetic moments. This scenario is corroborated also by finding low-temperature magnetostriction data that also scale with the square of magnetization. (shrink)

The paper proves that a historical method in Marxism is not identified to a dialectical method. The logic of history and the logic of its analysis in Marxism do not always coincide. The Logical coincides with the Historical only in eternity as it actually occurs in the works by G.V.F. Hegel. Eternity which has already witnessed everything does not know history any more. In the same way, history also begins there where the eternity comes to an end. Therefore, artificial identification (...) of the Logical with the Historical in Marxism led sometimes to actual mistakes. It is no wonder that it has always caused discussions in Marxism. They are mainly explained by the fact that the deductive, abstract-to-concrete method in which the “General” appears before the “Concrete” is an anti-historical method in its Nature. In real human history the “General” which is generalization of many “Concrete” could not appear before the latter in any way. For this reason, the real historical materialism needs an inductive method of knowledge. Only in that case historical materialism will cease to remain the soviet “histmat” and becomes the real form of a new world outlook. The author is of the opinion that the Party spirit of the Soviet philosophy promoted preservation of the anomalies mentioned in Marxism. The open discussion could help to find valid but not inherited from Hegel relation of historical and logical methods in Marxism. (shrink)

The scope and importance of the present work is manifest even to a casual glance; the actual heights of scholarly penetration and disinterestedness to which it rises can only be appreciated by the detailed examination of its text. From this latter examination, it readily appears that we are confronted with no ad hoc construction, no work cut, so to say, to fit a present need, however valid and cogent; but a work reflecting a near lifetime of application and animated by (...) a relentless devotion to documentary truth. For this reason, any account of it must, in simple justice, begin with a brief historical notice of the work itself. (shrink)

Erratum to: Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-015-0705-5In line 3 of footnote 8 on page 4, ‘allow’ should be ‘disallow’.In line 8 of page 5, \ should be \ and \ should be \. Similarly for lines 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 13 and 14 of page 6.The entry in row 20 column 6 of the table on page 5 should be 1 rather than 0.The entry \ in row 30 column 5 of the table on page 5 should be \.In line 27 (...) of page 13, ‘it’ should be ‘them’.Four lines from the end of section 12.3 on page 20, ‘premisses’ should be ‘premiss sets’, and .. (shrink)

Educational Theory, Volume 71, Issue 6, Page 787-807, December 2021.