We construct a Galois connection between closure and interior operators on a given set. All arguments are intuitionistically valid. Our construction is an intuitionistic version of the classical correspondence between closure and interior operators via complement.

Two examples of Galois connections and their dual forms are considered. One of them is applied to formulate a criterion when a given subset of a complete lattice forms a complete lattice. The second, closely related to the first, is used to prove in a short way the Knaster-Tarski’s fixed point theorem.

We investigate computational properties of propositional logics for dynamical systems. First, we consider logics for dynamic topological systems (W.f), fi, where W is a topological space and f a homeomorphism on W. The logics come with ‘modal’ operators interpreted by the topological closure and interior, and temporal operators interpreted along the orbits {w, f(w), f2 (w), ˙˙˙} of points w ε W. We show that for various classes of topological spaces the resulting logics are not recursively enumerable (and (...) so not recursively axiomatisable). This gives a ‘negative’ solution to a conjecture of Kremer and Mints. Second, we consider logics for dynamical systems (W, f), where W is a metric space and f and isometric function. The operators for topological interior/closure are replaced by distance operators of the form ‘everywhere/somewhere in the ball of radius a, ‘for a ε Q +. In contrast to the topological case, the resulting logic turns out to be decidable, but not in time bounded by any elementary function. (shrink)

We propose and investigate a uniform modal logic framework for reasoning about topology and relative distance in metric and more general distance spaces, thus enabling the comparison and combination of logics from distinct research traditions such as Tarski’s for topological closure and interior, conditional logics, and logics of comparative similarity. This framework is obtained by decomposing the underlying modal-like operators into first-order quantifier patterns. We then show that quite a powerful and natural fragment of the resulting first-order logic (...) can be captured by one binary operator comparing distances between sets and one unary operator distinguishing between realised and limit distances . Due to its greater expressive power, this logic turns out to behave quite differently from both and conditional logics. We provide finite axiomatisations and ExpTime-completeness proofs for the logics of various classes of distance spaces, in particular metric spaces. But we also show that the logic of the real line is not recursively enumerable. This result is proved by an encoding of Diophantine equations. (shrink)

In this article we introduce and study the notion of operational closure: a transitive set d is called operationally closed iff it contains all constants of OST and any operation f∈d applied to an element a∈d yields an element fa∈d, provided that f applied to a has a value at all. We will show that there is a direct relationship between operational closure and stability in the sense that operationally closed sets behave like Σ1 substructures of the (...) universe. This leads to our final result that OST plus the axiom , claiming that any set is element of an operationally closed set, is proof-theoretically equivalent to the system KP+ of Kripke–Platek set theory with infinity and Σ1 separation. We also characterize the system OST plus the existence of one operationally closed set in terms of Kripke–Platek set theory with infinity and a parameter-free version of Σ1 separation. (shrink)

We propose a logic for reasoning about metric spaces with the induced topologies. It combines the 'qualitative' interior and closure operators with 'quantitative' operators 'somewhere in the sphere of radius r.' including or excluding the boundary. We supply the logic with both the intended metric space semantics and a natural relational semantics, and show that the latter (i) provides finite partial representations of (in general) infinite metric models and (ii) reduces the standard '∈-definitions' of closure and (...) class='Hi'>interior to simple constraints on relations. These features of the relational semantics suggest a finite axiomatisation of the logic and provide means to prove its EXPTIME-completeness (even if the rational numerical parameters are coded in binary). An extension with metric variables satisfying linear rational (in)equalities is proved to be decidable as well. Our logic can be regarded as a 'well-behaved' common denominator of logical systems constructed in temporal, spatial, and similarity-based quantitative and qualitative representation and reasoning. Interpreted on the real line (with its Euclidean metric), it is a natural fragment of decidable temporal logics for specification and verification of real-time systems. On the real plane, it is closely related to quantitative and qualitative formalisms for spatial representation and reasoning, but this time the logic becomes undecidable. (shrink)

The concept of fuzzy Galois connections is defined on fuzzy posets with Bělohlávek's fuzzy Galois connections as a special case. The properties of fuzzy Galois connections are investigated. Then the relations between fuzzy Galois connections and fuzzy closure operators, fuzzy interior operators are studied.

The emergence of an autocatalytic network from an available set of elements is a fundamental step in early evolutionary processes, such as the origin of metabolism. Given the set of elements, the reactions between them (chemical or otherwise), and with various elements catalysing certain reactions, a Reflexively Autocatalytic F-generated (RAF) set is a subset R′\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$'$$\end{document} of reactions that is self-generating from a given food set, and with each reaction in R′\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} (...) \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$'$$\end{document} being catalysed from within R′\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$'$$\end{document}. RAF theory has been applied to various phenomena in theoretical biology, and a key feature of the approach is that it is possible to efficiently identify and classify RAFs within large systems. This is possible because RAFs can be described as the (nonempty) subsets of the reactions that are the fixed points of an (efficiently computable) interior map that operates on subsets of reactions. Although the main generic results concerning RAFs can be derived using just this property, we show that for systems with at least 12 reactions there are generic results concerning RAFs that cannot be proven using the interior operator property alone. (shrink)

In the categorical approach to the foundations of quantum theory, one begins with a symmetric monoidal category, the objects of which represent physical systems, and the morphisms of which represent physical processes. Usually, this category is taken to be at least compact closed, and more often, dagger compact, enforcing a certain self-duality, whereby preparation processes (roughly, states) are interconvertible with processes of registration (roughly, measurement outcomes). This is in contrast to the more concrete “operational” approach, in which the states and (...) measurement outcomes associated with a physical system are represented in terms of what we here call a convex operational model: a certain dual pair of ordered linear spaces–generally, not isomorphic to one another. On the other hand, state spaces for which there is such an isomorphism, which we term weakly self-dual, play an important role in reconstructions of various quantum-information theoretic protocols, including teleportation and ensemble steering. In this paper, we characterize compact closure of symmetric monoidal categories of convex operational models in two ways: as a statement about the existence of teleportation protocols, and as the principle that every process allowed by that theory can be realized as an instance of a remote evaluation protocol—hence, as a form of classical probabilistic conditioning. In a large class of cases, which includes both the classical and quantum cases, the relevant compact closed categories are degenerate, in the weak sense that every object is its own dual. We characterize the dagger-compactness of such a category (with respect to the natural adjoint) in terms of the existence, for each system, of a symmetric bipartite state, the associated conditioning map of which is an isomorphism. (shrink)

Stalnaker, 169–199 2006) introduced a combined epistemic-doxastic logic that can formally express a strong concept of belief, a concept of belief as ‘subjective certainty’. In this paper, we provide a topological semantics for belief, in particular, for Stalnaker’s notion of belief defined as ‘epistemic possibility of knowledge’, in terms of the closure of the interior operator on extremally disconnected spaces. This semantics extends the standard topological interpretation of knowledge with a new topological semantics for belief. We prove that (...) the belief logic KD45 is sound and complete with respect to the class of extremally disconnected spaces and we compare our approach to a different topological setting in which belief is interpreted in terms of the derived set operator. We also study belief revision as well as belief dynamics by providing a topological semantics for conditional belief and belief update modalities, respectively. Our setting based on extremally disconnected spaces, however, encounters problems when extended with dynamic updates. We then propose a solution consisting in interpreting belief in a similar way based on hereditarily extremally disconnected spaces, and axiomatize the belief logic of hereditarily extremally disconnected spaces. Finally, we provide a complete axiomatization of the logic of conditional belief and knowledge, as well as a complete axiomatization of the corresponding dynamic logic. (shrink)

Rough set theory is an excellent mathematical tool for the analysis of a vague description of actions in decision problems. Now, in this paper by considering the notion of an equality algebra, the notion of the lower and the upper approximations are introduced and some properties of them are given. Moreover, it is proved that the lower and the upper approximations define an interior operator and a closure operator, respectively. Also, using D-lower and D-upper approximation, conditions for a (...) nonempty subset to be definable are provided and investigated that under which condition D-lower and D-upper approximation can be filter. (shrink)

Las paradojas semánticas muestran que las teorías semánticas que internalizan sus propios conceptos semánticos, como la verdad y la validez, no pueden validar toda la lógica clásica. Es decir, es necesario debilitar algún conectivo del lenguaje objeto, tomado como culpable de las paradojas, o renunciar a alguna propiedad de la relación de consecuencia de la teoría lógica. Ambas estrategias pueden alejarnos de la lógica clásica, que es la lógica comúnmente utilizada en nuestras teorías matemáticas actuales. Por tanto, una solución deseable (...) a las paradojas semánticas no debería alejarnos de la lógica clásica. En este trabajo analizamos dos propuestas interesantes que pretenden mantener la lógica clásica al máximo posible. La primera estrategia, Barrio & Pailos & Szmuc-approach (2017) (BPS-approach), propone la lógica paraconsistente MSC que contiene en su lenguaje objeto un conectivo capaz de recuperar la inferencia clásica siempre que las oraciones en cuestión sean consistentes. Así, muestran que es posible construir una teoría semántica sobre esta lógica que sea inmune a las paradojas semánticas. El segundo enfoque se basa en la jerarquia STω de sistemas no transitivos STn, propuesta por Pailos (2020a). Esta jerarquía recupera tantas metainferencias clásicas como sea posible en los niveles superiores de la jerarquía. Argumentamos a favor del segundo enfoque, argumentando que la primera estrategia tiene que adoptar procedimientos autorreferenciales débiles para evitar las paradojas. (shrink)

The principle of epistemic closure is the claim that what is known to follow from knowledge is known to be true. This intuitively plausible idea is endorsed by a vast majority of knowledge theorists. There are significant problems, however, that have to be addressed if epistemic closure – closed knowledge – is endorsed. The present essay locates the problem for closed knowledge in the separation it imposes between knowledge and evidence. Although it might appear that all that stands (...) between knowing the truth of the premises of a valid inference and knowledge of its conclusion is inferring it from the premises, the evidence for each of the premises may jointly count against the conclusion. The intuitive view regarding inferred knowledge says one thing, the evidence says another. One epistemological framework that seems to have the resources to resolve this tension endorses the view that knowledge always requires conclusive evidence. A second framework resolves the tension by limiting the scope of the closure principle. Only inferences drawn directly from propositions contained in the scope of a single knowledge operator are considered closed. The aim of the present essay is to revive the unpopular third option, the idea that knowledge is open. The essay proceeds by arguing that in different ways the two former frameworks only succeed in relocating the problem, not in resolving it. The first framework, the infallibilist view, relocates the problem to a sharp separation between knowledge of the occurrences of events from knowledge of their chance of occurring, a separation leading to several significant additional problems. The fallibilist view, the second framework, in endorsing closure neglects to take into full account the ways in which evidence fails to be transitive. For instance, evidence can count in favor of a conjunction while counting against each of its conjuncts. This fact, which is argued for in the essay on probabilistic as well as non-probabilistic grounds, is used as the foundation of an argument against closed knowledge that can be used as a way to understand several of the most fundamental challenges of epistemology. Not only can an open knowledge view that is based on open evidence resolve all these problems in a simple and natural way, it can also respond to formidable challenges that significantly hinder other open knowledge views. There are good reasons, then, to view both knowledge and evidence as open. (shrink)

This article proposes to elaborate aesthetic judgment. The context is John Dadosky’s call for such an elaboration in light of the theological and philosophical import of a recovery of beauty. Following Dadosky’s suggestion that this be set within Lonergan’s appeal to interiority, the article signals two points in Dadosky’s program: patterns of experience and the role of cognitional operations. The article turns to Mikel Dufrenne’s work on the phenomenology of aesthetic experience. Based on this work, data is presented on behalf (...) of configuring a pattern of cognitional operations that is specific to aesthetic experience and that exemplifies Lonergan’s general empirical pattern of cognitional operations: experience, understanding, judgment. (shrink)

The Baire algebra of a topological space X is the quotient of the algebra of all subsets of X modulo the meager sets. We show that this Boolean algebra can be endowed with a natural closure operator, resulting in a closure algebra which we denote $\mathbf {Baire}(X)$. We identify the modal logic of such algebras to be the well-known system $\mathsf {S5}$, and prove soundness and strong completeness for the cases where X is crowded and either completely metrizable (...) and continuum-sized or locally compact Hausdorff. We also show that every extension of $\mathsf {S5}$ is the modal logic of a subalgebra of $\mathbf {Baire}(X)$, and that soundness and strong completeness also holds in the language with the universal modality. (shrink)

Constructive set theory a' la Myhill-Aczel has been extended in (Cantini and Crosilla 2008, Cantini and Crosilla 2010) to incorporate a notion of (partial, non--extensional) operation. Constructive operational set theory is a constructive and predicative analogue of Beeson's Inuitionistic set theory with rules and of Feferman's Operational set theory (Beeson 1988, Feferman 2006, Jaeger 2007, Jaeger 2009, Jaeger 1009b). This paper is concerned with an extension of constructive operational set theory (Cantini and Crosilla 2010) by a uniform operation (...) of Transitive Closure, \tau. Given a set a, \tau produces its transitive closure \tau a. We show that the theory ESTE of (Cantini and Crosilla 2010) augmented by \tau is still conservative over Peano Arithmetic. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this work the connections between the fuzzy closure operators and the graded consequence relations are examined Namely, as it is well known, in the crisp case there is a complete equivalence between the notion of closure operator and the one of consequence relation. We extend this result by proving that the graded consequence relations are related to a particular class of fuzzy closure operators, namely the class of fuzzy closure operators that can be obtained (...) by a chain of classical closure operators. (shrink)

In this paper, we prove that the lattice of all closure operators of a complete Almost Distributive Lattice L with fixed maximal element m is dual atomistic. We define the concept of a completely meet-irreducible element in a complete ADL and derive a necessary and sufficient condition for a dual atom of Φ (L) to be complemented.

This paper has two main purposes. First, it will provide an introductory discussion of hyperset theory, and show that it is useful for modeling complex systems. Second, it will use hyperset theory to analyze Robert Rosen’s metabolismrepair systems and his claim that living things are closed to efficient cause. It will also briefly compare closure to efficient cause to two other understandings of autonomy, operational closure and catalytic closure.

This paper will present an alternative to the mainstream Western approach to human development. The mainstream Western approach to human development does not countenance contemplative interiority as a means of cognitive inquiry and a domain of cognitive value. Hence, its conception of human development is narrowly confined to the domain of formal-operational thinking and its application to material exteriority. The alternative I will present is the work of the twentieth Indian philosopher Aurobindo (1872–1950) whose integral theory of human of development (...) inclusively countenances as realms of cognitive inquiry and value both contemplative interiority and formal-operational thinking and its application to material exteriority. The structure of Aurobindo’s integral theory of humandevelopment will be clarified and some of its implications for educational practice will be explored. (shrink)

In this paper, a theorem on the existence of complete embedding of partially ordered monoids into complete residuated lattices is shown. From this, many interesting results on residuated lattices and substructural logics follow, including various types of completeness theorems of substructural logics.

In this paper we develop the notion of formal precover in a topos by defining a relation between elements and sets in a local set theory. We show that such relations are equivalent to modalities and to universal closure operators. Finally we prove that these relations are well characterized by a convenient restriction to a particular set.

This paper presents a polarized phase semantics, with respect to which the linear fragment of second order polarized linear logic of Laurent [15] is complete. This is done by adding a topological structure to Girard's phase semantics [9]. The topological structure results naturally from the categorical construction developed by Hamano—Scott [12]. The polarity shifting operator ↓ (resp. ↑) is interpreted as an interior (resp. closure) operator in such a manner that positive (resp. negative) formulas correspond to open (resp. (...) closed) facts. By accommodating the exponentials of linear logic, our model is extended to the polarized fragment of the second order linear logic. Strong forms of completeness theorems are given to yield cut-eliminations for the both second order systems. As an application of our semantics, the first order conservativity of linear logic is studied over its polarized fragment of Laurent [16]. Using a counter model construction, the extension of this conservativity is shown to fail into the second order, whose solution is posed as an open problem in [16]. After this negative result, a second order conservativity theorem is proved for an eta expanded fragment of the second order linear logic, which fragment retains a focalized sequent property of [3]. (shrink)

In this paper, I consider the connection between consequence relations and closure operations. I argue that one familiar connection makes good sense of some usual applications of consequence relations, and that a largeish family of familiar noncontractive consequence relations cannot respect this familiar connection.

We continue the work of Blok and Jónsson by developing the theory of structural closure operators and introducing the notion of a representation between them. Similarities and equivalences of Blok-Jónsson turn out to be bijective representations and bijective structural representations, respectively. We obtain a characterization for representations induced by a transformer. In order to obtain a similar characterization for structural representations we introduce the notions of a graduation and a graded variable of an M-set. We show that several deductive (...) systems, Gentzen systems among them, are graded M-sets having graded variables, and describe the graded variables in each case. In the last section we show that, for a sentential logic, having an algebraic semantics is equivalent to being representable in an equational consequence. This motivates the extension of the notion of having an algebraic semantics for Gentzen systems, hypersequents systems, etc. We prove that if a closure operator is representable by a transformer, then every extension of it is also representable by the same transformer. As a consequence we obtain that if one of these systems has an algebraic semantics, then so does any of its extensions with the same defining equations. (shrink)

Attempts to define life should focus on the transition from molecules to cells and the “closure” aspects of this event. Rather than classifying existing objects into living and non-living entities I believe the challenge is to understand how the transition from non-life to life can take place, that is, the how the closure in Jagers op Akkerhuis’s hierarchical classification of operators, comes about.

Graham and Maitzen think my CORNEA principle is in trouble because it entails “intolerable violations of closure under known entailment.” I argue that the trouble arises from current befuddlement about closure itself, and that a distinction drawn by Rudolph Carnap, suitably extended, shows how closure, when properly understood, works in tandem with CORNEA. CORNEA does not obey Closure because it shouldn’t: it applies to “dynamic” epistemic operators, whereas closure principles hold only for “static” ones. What (...) the authors see as an intolerable vice of CORNEA is actually a virtue, helping us see what closure principles should—and shouldn’t—themselves be about. (shrink)

It is known that a semantically closed theory with description may well be trivial if the principles concerning denotation and descriptions are formulated in certain ways, even if the underlying logic is paraconsistent. This paper establishes the nontriviality of a semantically closed theory with a natural, but non-extensional, description operator.

In our previous paper Algebraic Logic for Classical Conjunction and Disjunction we studied some relations between the fragmentL of classical logic having just conjunction and disjunction and the varietyD of distributive lattices, within the context of Algebraic Logic. The central tool in that study was a class of closure operators which we calleddistributive, and one of its main results was that for any algebraA of type (2,2) there is an isomorphism between the lattices of allD-congruences ofA and of all (...) distributive closure operators overA. In the present paper we study the lattice structure of this last set, give a description of its finite and infinite operations, and obtain a topological representation. We also apply the mentioned isomorphism and other results to obtain proofs with a logical flavour for several new or well-known lattice-theoretical properties, like Hashimoto's characterization of distributive lattices, and Priestley's topological representation of the congruence lattice of a bounded distributive lattice. (shrink)

Sanford Goldberg’s account of epistemic coverage constitutes a special case of Douglas Walton’s view that epistemic closure arises from dialectical argument. Walton’s pragmatic version of epistemic closure depends on dialectical norms for closing an argument, and epistemic coverage operates at the limits of argument closure because it minimizes dialectical exchange. Such closure works together with a shared hypothetical consideration to justify dismissal of surprising claims.

We introduce a new logical operator CSTC and show that incorporating this operator into first-order logic enables as to capture the complexity class PSPACE. We also show that by varying how the operator is applied we can capture the complexity classes P, NP, the classes of the Polynomial Hierarchy PH, and PSPACE. As such, the operator CSTC can be regarded as a general purpose operator. We also give applications of these characterizations by showing that P and NP coincide with those (...) problems accepted by two new classes of program schemes , by producing some new complete problems for various complexity classes where the reductions are from first principles and do not use known complete problems , and by giving a simple proof that first-order logic incorporated with the least fixed point operator captures P. (shrink)

“Small” large cardinal notions in the language of ZFC are those large cardinal notions that are consistent with V = L. Besides their original formulation in classical set theory, we have a variety of analogue notions in systems of admissible set theory, admissible recursion theory, constructive set theory, constructive type theory, explicit mathematics and recursive ordinal notations (as used in proof theory). On the face of it, it is surprising that such distinctively set-theoretical notions have analogues in such disaparate and (...) relatively constructive contexts. There must be an underlying reason why that is possible (and, incidentally, why “large” large cardinal notions have not led to comparable analogues). My long term aim is to develop a common language in which such notions can be expressed and can be interpreted both in their original classical form and in their analogue form in each of these special constructive and semi-constructive cases. This is a program in progress. What is done here, to begin with, is to show how that can be done to a considerable extent in the settings of classical and admissible set theory (and thence, admissible recursion theory). The approach taken here is to expand the language of set theory to allow us to talk about (possibly partial) operations applicable both to sets and to operations and to formulate the large cardinal notions in question in terms of operational closure conditions; at the same time only minimal existence axioms are posited for sets. The resulting system, called Operational Set Theory, is a partial adaptation to the set-theoretical framework of the explicit mathematics framework Feferman (1975). The.. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Giving an Account of OneselfChris LundbergGiving an Account of Oneself. Judith Butler. New York: Fordham University Press, 2005. Pp. x + 149. $18.95, softcover.Giving an Account of Oneself, Judith Butler's recent foray into moral philosophy, is a lucid interrogation of the problem of responsibility in the wake of contemporary critiques of the subject. In it, Butler moves beyond her concern with the conditions of subjectivity and its performances (...) towards a fuller consideration of life with others. Butler proffers an answer to the problem of post-subjective responsibility that resonates with the best elements of the rhetorical traditions, [End Page 329] though perhaps Butler's project might also benefit from a more thorough engagement with the problem of rhetoric in its specificity.Though works such as Gender Trouble earned a reputation (perhaps unfairly) for being theoretically dense to the point of obscurity, Giving an Account of Oneself is clearly and elegantly argued. Butler's argument is that moral philosophy relies on the ability of subjects to give an account of themselves and their actions. Such an account seems difficult in the face of blistering critiques of an autonomous, self-possessed, transparent, and naturally given subject of intention. How can one affirm responsibility in the post-subjective moment? As Butler puts it: "does the postulation of a subject who is not self-grounding … whose conditions of emergence can never fully be accounted for, undermine the possibility of responsibility and, in particular, of giving an account of oneself" (19)? What are the assumptions latent in critiques of the humanist subject that might deny the possibility of giving an account of oneself? Inspired by Foucault's interrogation of a naturalized truth of the subject, Lacan's account of a subject produced and dispossessed by the Symbolic Order, and Derrida's critique of presence, such critiques locate the subject as an effect of the operations of discourse, conceived broadly. Despite the force of these critiques, Butler claims that a view of the subject nested in and dispossessed by discourse provides possibilities for ethics. Butler's reframing of ethics draws on two assumptions that underwrite "post" accounts of the subject: that the subject is both an effect of discourse and of differential relation to others.The first assumption is that a subject produced within discourse is also a subject that is dependent on and interpenetrated by others. Drawing on her continuing engagement with Hegel, the work of Adriana Cavarero, Levinas's conception of alterity and Laplanche's theory of seduction, Butler argues that the subject is endowed with a "fundamental sociality" (33). The markers of fundamental sociality differ for each of these theorists: Hegel relies on the concept of recognition; Cavarero appropriates Arendt's space of appearance; Levinas argues for the priority of an ethical relation to the other over ontology; and Laplanche conceives of the emergence of subjectivity as a primal seduction of a child by the adult world. But each of these framings of the subject is united by a basic commitment that subjects are produced in relation to others both as a generative point and as a horizon.The second assumption is that when a subject dependent on other subjects attempts to give an account of itself, it does so within a structure of address. A subject makes a claim for itself only in the presence of others—an account of oneself both aims at the self but also simultaneously aims at presenting the self to another. On this reading, accounts of oneself are not transparent descriptions [End Page 330] of a subject's interiority: rather, an account of oneself must be a narrative, a discursive gathering of the self that can never fully recover the conditions of its emergence. Narrative is not simply a mode of communicating the content and intentions of a self to the other. Narrative is simultaneously the precondition for a subject naming and providing retroactive order to its own subjectivity. But where there are narratives, there is always the risk of narrative closure, or that the narrative is repeated without interruption. Put in terms of Butler's concern with ethics, is there not always a risk that a narrative becomes a self... (shrink)

We formally investigate immediate and mediate grounding operators from an inferential perspective. We discuss the differences in behaviour displayed by several grounding operators and consider a general distinction between grounding and logical operators. Without fixing a particular notion of grounding or grounding relation, we present inferential rules that define, once a base grounding calculus has been fixed, three grounding operators: an operator for immediate grounding, one for mediate grounding – corresponding to the transitive closure of the immediate grounding one (...) – and a grounding tree operator, which enables us to internalise chains of immediate grounding claims without losing any information about them. We then present an in-depth proof-theoretical study of the introduced rules by focussing, in particular, on the question whether grounding operators can be considered as logical operators and whether balanced rules for grounding operators can be defined. (shrink)

When it comes to making decisions in vague problems, rough is one of the best tools to help analyzers. So based on rough and hoop concepts, two kinds of approximations (Lower and Upper) for filters in hoops are defined, and then some properties of them are investigated by us. We prove that these approximations- lower and upper- are interior and closure operators, respectively. Also after defining a hyper operation in hoops, we show that by using this hyper (...) operation, set of all rough filters is monoid. For more study, we define the implicative operation on the set of all rough filters and prove that this set with implication and intersection is made a hoop. (shrink)

Does a factive conception of knowability figure in ordinary use? There is some reason to think so. ‘Knowable’ and related terms such as ‘discoverable’, ‘observable’, and ‘verifiable’ all seem to operate factively in ordinary discourse. Consider the following example, a dialog between colleagues A and B: A: We could be discovered. B: Discovered doing what? A: Someone might discover that we're having an affair. B: But we are not having an affair! A: I didn’t say that we were. A’s remarks (...) sound contradictory. In this context the factivity of ‘someone might discover that’ explains this fact. So there is some reason to believe that knowability and related modalities are factive in ordinary use. For factive treatments of knowability in the context of epistemic theories of truth, compare Tennant (2000: 829) and Wright (2001: 59-60, n. 17). (shrink)

We establish a general hierarchy theorem for quantifier classes in the infinitary logic L∞ωωon finite structures. In particular, it is shown that no infinitary formula with bounded number of universal quantifiers can express the negation of a transitive closure.This implies the solution of several open problems in finite model theory: On finite structures, positive transitive closure logic is not closed under negation. More generally the hierarchy defined by interleaving negation and transitive closure operators is strict. This proves (...) a conjecture of Immerman.We also separate the expressive power of several extensions of Datalog, giving new insight in the fine structure of stratified Datalog. (shrink)

This paper provides an account of the closure conditions that apply to sets of subvening and supervening properties, showing that the criterion that determines under which property-forming operations a particular family of properties is closed is applicable both to the finitary and to the infinitary case. In particular, it will be established that, contra Glanzberg, infinitary operations do not give rise to any additional difficulties beyond those that arise in the finitary case.

Translated by Drew S. Burk and Anthony Paul Smith. Excerpted from Struggle and Utopia at the End Times of Philosophy , (Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing, 2012). THE END TIMES OF PHILOSOPHY The phrase “end times of philosophy” is not a new version of the “end of philosophy” or the “end of history,” themes which have become quite vulgar and nourish all hopes of revenge and powerlessness. Moreover, philosophy itself does not stop proclaiming its own death, admitting itself to be half dead (...) and doing nothing but providing ammunition for its adversaries. With our sights set on clearing up this nuance, we differentiate philosophy as an institutional entity, and the philosophizability of the World and History, of “thought-world,” which universalizes the narrow concept of philosophy and that of “capital.” We also give an eschatological and apocalyptical cause to this end, of “times” or “ages” rather than those of philosophical practice. Last but not least, it is the Future itself in the performativity of its ultimatum that determines this end times, reversing these times from the Identity the Future accorded to it, withdrawing the thought-world from the lie of its death. Why this style of axioms and oracles, these more or less subtle distinctions, old and debased, with an appeal to the ultimata , to end times and last words? We fight to give, parallel to the concept of Hell, its new theoretical position, for its philosophical return and its non-philosophical transformation. No more so than any other word, Hell is not a metaphor here, just the Principle of Sufficient World. Every man, no doubt, has his “hell” readily available, connivance, control, conformism, domestication, schooling, alienation, extermination, exploitation, oppression, anxiety, etc. We have our little list that the Contemporaries established in the previous century in the same way one used to construct lists of virtues and vices or honors and wealth. They invented it for us without knowing it, for us-the-Futures who have as our responsibility to invent its use. In the Christian and Gnostic tradition, the struggle of the End Times takes place “on earth.” The most sophisticated of believers have it taking place in Heaven as well, above all in Heaven. The various kinds of gnosis imagine infinite falls and vertiginous highs, the vertigo of salvation. On Earth as in Heaven, a hell is available. The Marxists have the law of profit and the control of production, the class struggle Capital imposes on man. The Nietzscheans, the dull grumble of the struggle in the foundations of World and History, the domestication of man, the society of control. The phenomenologists, the capture of being, the most superficial amongst them, the age of suspicion. But all of these “hells” are taken from World, History, Society, and Religion. What we call Hell is no longer of the order of these specific and total intra-worldly generalities, it is both more singular and more universal, no longer being at all of the same order, it is the determinant Identity of these small hells strung out through history but unified here in the name of the last Humaneity. It is even found within the French idiom for hell [ enfer ], en-fer literally means “in-irons.” We are as much “in-irons” as we are “alive” [ en-Vie ]. We believe in Hell but as non-philosophers and it is even because we are non-philosophers that we can believe in it outside of any sort of religion. Hell is less mythological than ideological, it combines philosophizability with universal capital. Under what form? A single term could work for them without being a metaphor or something they would participate in by analogy, a more innovative and conjectural term than control, more universal than profit. It would denote the growing and permanent extortion of a surplus-value of communication, of speed and of urgency in change, in productivity and in work, in the pressure of images and slogans. It would be worse than solicitation, more tenacious than capture, more active and persecutory than control, softer and more insidious than a frontal attack, just as perverse as questioning and accusation, less brutal and offensive than extermination, less ritualized than inquisition, it would be soft and dispersed, instantaneous and vicious, it would be a crime without declared violence. Collusion and conformism, it would be afraid to show itself. Related to rumor, from which it borrows its infinite and tortuous ways. It is harassment. As a modernized form of Hell, perhaps harassment has a long future in front of it, of innocent torture, slow assassination, in short the fall, but radical with no way of recovering and which tolerates only salvation. THE PHILOSOPHICAL PAST OF NON-PHILOSOPHY Non-philosophy is thus Man as the utopian identity of the philosophical form of the World, a utopia destined to transform it. We still have to understand these equations, in particular that of the being-uni-versed from Man, and this book adheres to this by re-exposing non-philosophy in a different way via one of its new possibilities. It uses this opportunity to once again take up formulations that lead to objections answering certain external critics, as well as revisiting diverging interpretations specific to non-philosophers. A portion of this book is devoted to going through these theories via a strict or “lengthy” presentation of non-philosophy, and its defense against more expeditious solutions. This work of rectification is the occasion, merely the occasion, for refocusing non-philosophy on Man (the “Man-in-person,” “Humaneity”), and in a more innovative manner, on its utopian vocation established since the book Future Christ . As for this “occasion,” it is quite obvious. A school of posture, not to say a school of thought, supposes a minimum of closure from the most liberating of knowledge, a heritage, its utilization, and its no less certain dispersal. Within its development, a variety of interpretations will no doubt appear, deviations that are as much normalizations, and a struggle against this multiplication of divergent tendencies. These are perhaps not inevitable evils, especially here, merely a normal development according to the twisting paths of history. But the problem is made worse by the fact that this school of non-philosophers is that of utopia. Not the former attempts devoted to commenting on the worst authoritarian and criminal forms of the past and the present, but utopia as the determinant principle for human life, or to put it another way, of the Future as an irreducible presupposition of (for) thinking the World and History. Non-philosophers are engaged in an aleatory navigation between the respect for the most rigorous utopia, whose rules are not that of the reproductive imagination but those from the Future determining imagination itself, as well as the temptations, diversions, and remorse of history. Little by little, we will begin to understand that the Future as we understand it no longer has any temporal consistency or positive content, without being an empty form or a nothingness, but that it is foreclosed to past and present History, just as it is foreclosed to the place of places, the World, and that it is the only method for establishing the practice of thinking in a non-imaginary instance. Because it is the World and History that are imaginary and have a terrible materiality, it is not necessarily utopia. We will overlap two objectives here: the defense of non-philosophy against the (non-) philosophers that we are, only occasionally, and the introduction of philosophy to a rigorous future. Together they set out to definitively render, without any possible return to philosophical conformism or towards the facilities of the past and present, the non-philosophical enterprise understood as utopia or uchronia. Imagination and speculation, left to themselves and thus undistinguished, are quite good for participating in the grand game of History but have little value or worse for the Future which is unimaginable and unintelligible and must be maintained as such. MAN-IN-PERSON AS SUSPENSION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CHORA The point where philosophical resistance is concentrated is without a doubt the invention of the Name-of-Man, first name, oracular as much as axiomatic, of the determining cause for the non-philosophical posture. And that which concentrates the differends is the style of non-philosophy as identity that possesses the dual aspect, of discipline and of the oeuvre, of the theorem and of the oracle. But the real difficulty in understanding the simplicity of non-philosophy is profoundly hidden in the depths of philosophy itself. Because philosophy, from Parmenides to Derrida, even Levinas, continues to be a divided gesture, without a veritable immanence, transforming its thematic contents of transcendence in also forgetting to transform the operative transcendence in the element from which the ontology of surface is established which we will call, in memory of Plato, the chorismos. The general effect of the chora literally gives place to philosophy, demanding binding and sutures to which we will once and for all “oppose” the Man-in-person, his power of cloning, and his future being. All philosophy contains a hinter-philosophy in which it deploys its operations and weaves its tradition like an understudy of a topographical nature and in the best of cases being itself topological. Philosophy as well consists of two levels, its pre-ontological operative conditions on the one hand, and its superficial theme on the other, it too has its presupposed, but is not aware of it or erases it within the unity of appearance named Logos. Rightly, the Logos, and its flash or lightning nature, possesses a “dark precursor,” the chora, which is as much a virtual image, and philosophy, dazzled by its own lightning flash, seems to completely forget about it at the same time it sets itself up within it. Non-philosophy risks taking this same path, of confusing what it believes to be the real with its phantom double, contenting itself to working on the thematic level of philosophy, not its surface objects and its idle chatter (we stopped talking about this a long time ago and in any case they are merely simple materials for inducing a work of transformation), but the transcendence-form of its objects. In the end it risks, through precipitation, taking back up the heritage of philosophy, a heritage of a misunderstood presupposed, even more profound than the play of transcendences. This is what the imperative of the radicality of immanence meant, to treat immanence in an immanent manner, not to make a new object out of it. And from here we get non- (philosophy) and its refusal of the Platonic chorismos , symbol of all abstraction, and thus all transcendental appearance. There are no illusions. The message will leave a heritage in tattered pieces and interpretations. But it was difficult not to dispute the differend to its core. There will be complete confusion of the multiple, possible, and necessary effectuations of non-philosophy with its interpretations. The non-philosophical or human freedom of philosophical effectuation and the philosophical freedom of interpretation. Effectuations demand non-philosophy to return to zero from the point of view of its philosophical material and thus also but within these limits the formulation of its axioms , but in no way providing from the outset divergent interpretations of the aforementioned axioms. They are divergent because they do not take into account the material from which these axioms are derived within non-philosophy, and because they do not see themselves as symptoms of another vision of the World. The utterances of non-philosophy are not mathematical theorems and pure axioms, they merely have a mathematical aspect . They are, by their extraction or origin, mathematical and transcendental. And by their determined function in-Real, within non-philosophy, they are identically in-the-last-Humaneity entities which have an aspect of an axiom and an aspect of interpretation (or an oracular aspect as we say) that attempts (sometimes it is ourselves who provide the occasion) to isolate and transform, in complete freedom of interpretation. There will be an opportunity to complain about the complex character of the language of non-philosophy, an idiom saturated with classical references, sophisticated in a contemporary way. Its freedom of decision up against the whole of philosophy demands these effects of “complication” and “privatization,” as the saying goes. But it also demands fighting against the drift [ dérive ] of the pedagogical-all and the mediatic-all that leads philosophy into the shallow depths of opinion, which is the site of its impossible death. The noble idealism of “pop-philosophy” has been consumed into a “philo-reality;” against this we propose philo-fiction. Parricide, which is at the bottom of these interpretations and which we can judge as being quite fertile, although it has informed tradition, only takes place once or within one lone meaning. In regards to Parmenides, it was possible; Plato introduced the Other as non-being and language, bringing into existence the philosophical system of the World, but is it possible to repeat it again with the same fecundity in regards to non-philosophy, this time in introducing (non) religion or (non) art, still mixing them without taking into account this mixture, alternatively as a philosophical or religious resentment? If philosophy begins via a crime, it is no doubt obliged to continue down similar pathways, to the effect that the crimes of philosophy, once the founding crime has been committed, are a reaction of self-defense. It is undoubtedly from this that we get Marx’s declaration that history begins by tragedy and repeats itself or ends in farce. The preservation of rigor and fecundity is, in every respect, a psychologically difficult task within a theory such as non-philosophy. Having posited an essential objective of liberation in regards to philosophy and its services, one has often understood this objective as an authorization of providing particular interpretations of its axioms and ends up obliterating their scope. This ends up confusing, on one hand, two kinds of freedoms in regards to non-philosophy, the freedom of its interpretations and the freedom of its effectuations. On the other hand, any defense of “principles” against precipitated interpretations is immediately taxed with a will to orthodoxy, a prohibitive objection when we are dealing with, as is the case here, a heretical theory of thought. Nevertheless, it is time to stop confusing heresy as the cause of thought with an ideology of heresies, which is certainly not at all our object, but rather a form of normalization. As for the “disciplinary” aspect, which is not the only aspect, it demands something other than philosophical “answers to objections,” a precision in the definition and use of its procedures in the formation of utterances, since non-philosophy is neither a supplementary doctrine interior to philosophy nor a vision of the world but one whose priority is a “vision of Man,” or rather Man as “vision” that implies a theory and a practice of philosophy. In the end, struggle is only one aspect of non-philosophy, not its whole or telos, struggle coming only from its materiality. In particular, if the discipline of non-philosophy is inseparable from struggle, it is not a question of reducing the monomaniacal obsession of its “marching orders.” This would reduce its complexity and kill its indivisibility, deploying it in a “long march” and a form of Maoization whose philosophical presuppositions no longer have any pertinence here, a case of the One and the Two, which are now cloned and no longer tied together. More generally, non-philosophy is a complex thought composed of a multitude of aspects, which is to say, unilateral interpretations, of a philosophical origin but reduced by their determination in-the-last-instance . The “liberalism” of non-philosophy is merely one of the aspects of which it is capable, not an essence. Similarly, it is only capable of having a “Maoist” aspect. Let us generalize. The weakness of non-philosophy is due to a specific cause, the determination-in-the-last-Humaneity of a subject for the World. Everything that has a right to the philosophical city can be said about it in turn and in a retaliatory mode since Man contributes nothing of himself that Man takes from the World. We can consider non-philosophy as being pretentious, absurd, idealistic, empty, materialistic, formalistic, contradictory, modern, post-modern, Zen, Buddhist, Marxist; it endures or tolerates, perhaps “appeals” to, or at least renders possible, sarcasms, ironies, and insults without even talking about the misunderstandings, partly for the same reason as psychoanalysis. All of this goes beyond simple “deviations.” They are its aspects, which is to say, its “unilateral” philosophical interpretations in both senses of the word, being either sufficient coming from the mouth of philosophers, or reduced to their absolute dimension of sufficiency and totality in the mouths of non-philosophers, and both times due to the weakness and strength of Man-in-person as their determination only in-the-last-instance. The non-philosopher is certainly not a Saint Paul fantasizing about a new Church. The non-philosopher is either a (Saint) Sebastian whose flesh is pierced with as many arrows as there are Churches, or a Christ persecuted by a Saint Paul. What is engaged in here is the practice of retaliation. A negative rule of the non-philosophical ethics of outlawed discussion by way of argumentation (the sufficient is you, the orthodox one is always you, you are the fashionable one, and when a master you are someone else) that is founded on the confusion of effectuations of non-philosophy and of its overall interpretations. Retaliation is the law but as with any too-human law, it must acquire a dimension that displaces it, or rather emplaces it and takes away its authority but not all of its effectiveness. If the non-philosopher is only authorized by himself, which is to say by philosophy but limited by the Real-of-the-last-instance, its critique of other non-philosophers can merely be retaliatory under the same conditions, only by the Real limited in-the last-instance. THE TREE OF PHILOSOPHICAL SAINTLINESS The thematic horizon or material of these debates is in the relationships between philosophy, religion as gnosis, and non-philosophy. It is inevitable, regarding non-philosophers in general (whether they are non-philosophers by name or simply its neighbors) that we often end up evoking Marx’s Holy Family and imagining, arranged on the neighboring branches of the tree of philosophy and annexed, sometimes abusively, to non-philosophy, authors who would quite evidently and quite rightly refuse this label. So it is that we find, for example, a Saint Michel, a Saint Alain, a Saint Gilles 1 without even mentioning the youngest who aspire as well to the freedom of “saintliness” and who make their muted voices heard here. If there is a Holy Family of non-philosophers, it extends completely beyond these three, provided that the sectarian spirit can save us. This book is organized in the following manner: To begin, in order to recall the essential part of the problematic, we have organized a Summary of Non-Philosophy , a vade-mecum of notions and basic problems, in a classical style. Secondly, there is Clarifications On the Three Axioms of Non-Philosophy , designed to posit their proper use as much as to elucidate their meaning. Thirdly, an analysis of Philosophizability and Practicity , both being extreme constituents of philosophical material or the contents of the third axiom. Fourthly, the heart of this work: Let us Make a Tabula Rasa of the Future or of Utopia as Method . Fifthly, we have a theoretical outline of a non-institutional utopia, The International Organization of Non-Philosophy, L’Organisation Non-Philosophique Internationale, (ONPHI) already created in practice but under the conditions of possibility and functioning from which here we put into question “de jure,” thus not without a perplexity concerning “facts,” in any case, without the capability of “getting to the bottom of things.” Sixthly, an essay characterizing The Right and the Left of Non-Philosophy , a brief topology of several philosophizing and normalizing positions of proponents or tenants of this problematic. Seventhly, Rebel in the Soul: A Theory of Future Struggle , a systematic discussion starting from a confrontation of non-philosophical gnosis and non-religious gnosis to the extent that they pose, posed or perhaps still will pose themselves as rivals to non-philosophy in a mixture of fidelity and infidelity. Despite the fact that it can also be read as putting non-philosophy into perspective: it pits against a standard Platonism two contemporary appropriations of Gnosticism. On the basis of the paradigm of Man who never ceases to come as the Future-in-person, each one of these moments strives to reestablish not the “true” non-philosophy and its orthodoxy, but the minimal conditions to respect in order to allow for its maximum fecundity. And in order to bring about one of the last possibilities of its development, making explicit Humaneity as a utopia-for-the-World. In introducing these considerations in the form of a “testament” and “ultimatum,” we want to indicate two things: First, that this is the last time we will intervene in order to caution non-philosophers against the temptation of returning and looking backwards towards philosophy. Only a disillusioned nostalgia for the former World and its traditions barely remain permissible to us.… Secondly, that non-philosophy is also a sort of ultimatum for considering one’s life and transforming one’s thought from the perspective of a uni-version rather than a conversion. Man as future is this ultimatum in action, not an impatient self-proclaimed genius, and philosophy is his testament. It is obviously the ultimatum that determines this testament as “old” with a view towards a life that is, itself, non-testamentary. In and of itself, the “old” can never bear a veritable eschaton. Thus, this book intersects according to the logic of this paradigm, under the sign of the ultimate or “last” as future, philosophy as testament and cautionary note for maintaining the non-philosophical oeuvre as “future” or “utopian.” We will see that between these two dimensions it cradles a theory of struggle. In the end, this book envisions non-philosophers in multiple ways. It inevitably sees them as subjects of knowledge, most often academics insofar as life in the world demands, but above all as close relatives of three great human types. The analyst and political militant are quite obvious, for non-philosophy is close to psychoanalysis and Marxism insofar as it transforms the subject in transforming philosophy. Here again, one must have a sense not of certain nuances but of aspects (of the interpretations, albeit unilateralized) and not in order to construct a simple proletarization or militarization of thought as theory. To be rigorous, rather than authoritarian or spiteful, is its task. And lastly, non-philosophy is a close relative of the spiritual but definitely not the spiritualist. Those who are spiritual are not at all spiritualists, for the spiritual oscillate between fury and tranquil rage, they are great destroyers of the forces of Philosophy and the State, which are united under the name of Conformism. They haunt the margins of philosophy, gnosis, mysticism, science fiction and even religions. Spiritual types are not only abstract mystics and quietists; they are heretics for the World. The task is to bring their heresy to the capacity of utopia, and their utopia to the capacity of the paradigm. NOTES We will recognize allusions, and sometimes references, to closely related or distant themes, but which are related, in the work of Michel Henry, Alain Badiou and via the representative of “non-religious” gnosis of a Platonic origin, in Gilles Grelet. It goes without saying that these discussions are current and local, neither concerning the ensemble of doctrines nor prejudging the eventual evolution of certain amongst them. This concerns defining certain proximities with non-philosophy (rather than adversaries which in some sense they are) and typological and emblematic differends (rather than conflicts with a certain author). (shrink)

Geometric data models form the backbone of virtually all spatial information systems, such as GIS, CAD, and CAM. Yet a lot of spatial information from textual sources, including historical document...

In this paper, notions of fuzzy closure system and fuzzy closure L—system on L—ordered sets are introduced from the fuzzy point of view. We first explore the fundamental properties of fuzzy closure systems. Then the correspondence between fuzzy closure systems and fuzzy closure operators is established. Finally, we study the connections between fuzzy closure systems and fuzzy Galois connections. © 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

In this paper we show that some standard topological constructions may be fruitfully used in the theory of closure spaces (see [5], [4]). These possibilities are exemplified by the classical theorem on the universality of the Alexandroff's cube for T 0-closure spaces. It turns out that the closure space of all filters in the lattice of all subsets forms a generalized Alexandroff's cube that is universal for T 0-closure spaces. By this theorem we obtain the following (...) characterization of the consequence operator of the classical logic: If is a countable set and C: P() P() is a closure operator on X, then C satisfies the compactness theorem iff the closure space ,C is homeomorphically embeddable in the closure space of the consequence operator of the classical logic.We also prove that for every closure space X with a countable base such that the cardinality of X is not greater than 2 there exists a subset X of irrationals and a subset X of the Cantor's set such that X is both a continuous image of X and a continuous image of X. (shrink)

It is well known that, in a topological space, the open sets can be characterized using ?lter convergence. In ZF , we cannot replace filters by ultrafilters. It is proven that the ultra?lter convergence determines the open sets for every topological space if and only if the Ultrafilter Theorem holds. More, we can also prove that the Ultra?lter Theorem is equivalent to the fact that uX = kX for every topological space X, where k is the usual Kuratowski closure (...) operator and u is the Ultra?lter Closure with uX := {x ∈ X: [U converges to x and A ∈ U ]}. However, it is possible to built a topological space X for which uX ≠ kX, but the open sets are characterized by the ultra?lter convergence. To do so, it is proved that if every set has a free ultra?lter, then the Axiom of Countable Choice holds for families of non-empty finite sets. It is also investigated under which set theoretic conditions the equality u = k is true in some subclasses of topological spaces, such as metric spaces, second countable T0-spaces or {ℝ}. (shrink)

Much work has been done on specific instances of residuated lattices with modal operators . In this paper, we develop a general framework that subsumes three important classes of modal residuated lattices: interior algebras, Abelian ℓ-groups with conuclei, and negative cones of ℓ-groups with nuclei. We then use this framework to obtain results about these three cases simultaneously. In particular, we show that a categorical equivalence exists in each of these cases. The approach used here emphasizes the role played (...) by reducts in the proofs of these categorical equivalences. Lastly, we develop a connection between translations of logics and images of modal operators. (shrink)

There is no known syntactic characterization of the class of finite definitions in terms of a set of basic definitions and a set of basic operators under which the class is closed. Furthermore, it is known that the basic propositional operators do not preserve finiteness. In this paper I survey these problems and explore operators that do preserve finiteness. I also show that every definition that uses only unary predicate symbols and equality is bound to be finite.

The main result of this paper is the following theorem: a closure space X has an , , Q-regular base of the power iff X is Q-embeddable in It is a generalization of the following theorems:(i) Stone representation theorem for distributive lattices ( = 0, = , Q = ), (ii) universality of the Alexandroff's cube for T 0-topological spaces ( = , = , Q = 0), (iii) universality of the closure space of filters in the lattice (...) of all subsets for , -closure spaces (Q = 0). By this theorem we obtain some characterizations of the closure space given by the consequence operator for the classical propositional calculus over a formalized language of the zero order with the set of propositional variables of the power . In particular we prove that a countable closure space X is embeddable with finite disjunctions preserved into F iff X is a consistent closure space satisfying the compactness theorem and X contains a 0, -base consisting of -prime sets. (shrink)