Intermediate prepositional logics we consider here describe the setI() of regular informational types introduced by Yu. T. Medvedev [7]. He showed thatI() is a Heyting algebra. This algebra gives rise to the logic of infinite problems from [13] denoted here asLM 1. Some other definitions of negation inI() lead to logicsLM n (n ). We study inclusions between these and other systems, proveLM n to be non-finitely axiomatizable (n ) and recursively axiomatizable (n ). We also show that formulas (...) in one variable do not separateLM from Heyting's logicH, andLM n (n ) from Scott's logic (H+S). (shrink)

There is a Turing computable embedding $\Phi $ of directed graphs $\mathcal {A}$ in undirected graphs. Moreover, there is a fixed tuple of formulas that give a uniform effective interpretation; i.e., for all directed graphs $\mathcal {A}$, these formulas interpret $\mathcal {A}$ in $\Phi $. It follows that $\mathcal {A}$ is Medvedev reducible to $\Phi $ uniformly; i.e., $\mathcal {A}\leq _s\Phi $ with a fixed Turing operator that serves for all $\mathcal {A}$. We observe that there is a graph (...) G that is not Medvedev reducible to any linear ordering. Hence, G is not effectively interpreted in any linear ordering. Similarly, there is a graph that is not interpreted in any linear ordering using computable $\Sigma _2$ formulas. Any graph can be interpreted in a linear ordering using computable $\Sigma _3$ formulas. Friedman and Stanley [4] gave a Turing computable embedding L of directed graphs in linear orderings. We show that there is no fixed tuple of $L_{\omega _1\omega }$ -formulas that, for all G, interpret the input graph G in the output linear ordering $L$. Harrison-Trainor and Montalbán [7] have also shown this, by a quite different proof. (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 publication presents the initial passages of the famious Pali Brahmajālasuttanta with the corresponding parts of its traditional commentary Sumaṅgalavilāsinī as a sample of the ancient hypertext. It is meant as a valuable source to such fundamental philological and hermeneutical questions as what is commented ans what is disregarded by the commentator; how, why and whatfore is in commented.

Книга предназначена для студентов, преподавателей и научных сотрудников высших учебных заведений, занимающихся вопросами философии.

Издание предназначено для студентов и преподавателей гуманитарных образовательных учреждений, специалистов и практиков в различных областях науки.

t. 1. Filosofii︠a︡ ; Izbrannye predislovii︠a︡ ; I︠A︡zykoznanie -- t. 2. Filologii︠a︡ ; Vospominanii︠a︡ i nabli︠u︡denii︠a︡ ; Pami︠a︡ti uchiteleĭ i kolleg ; Prilozhenie : A.N. Kolmogorov, semioticheskie poslanii︠a︡.

Following up on a 1989 paper on the subject, this essay revisits the question of ethical expertise in the court room. Informed by recent developments in the use of ethics experts, the authors argue 1) that the adversarial nature of court proceedings challenges the integrity of the ethicist's pedagogical role; 2) that the use of ethics experts as normative authorities remains dubious; 3) that clarification of the State's interest in “protecting the ethical integrity of the medical profession” is urgently required; (...) and 4) that the expertise of the ethicist may be more appropriately used in advising the legislature than in influencing the court. (shrink)