Dear Cheerful Logicians and Friends of Logic,

Before getting to the week's events, a note: there is a workshop being
hosted by the University of St. Andrews this week that is likely to be of
interest to some of you. The topic is "Theories of Paradox in the Middle
Ages". It will run via Zoom on October 21, 22, and 23. Details can be found
at the following link:
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/arche/event/paradoxes-in-the-middle-ages/.

There are six events to announce this week: one each on Monday and
Wednesday, and two each on Thursday and Friday.

Supergroup Talk



*Speaker: *Ana Claudia Golzio (UNICAMP)

*Title: *Swap structures semantics for some logics of formal inconsistency

*Time and Date: *Friday, October 23 09:00 GMT-5

*Link: *
https://ksu.zoom.us/j/99677150172?pwd=MFFBcXlDdVpuRjRXaGVRU1ZwUmdOdz09
*Meeting ID:* 996 7715 0172
*Passcode:* structures

*Abstract: * Multialgebras (or hyperalgebras) are algebras which at least
one of the operations (called multioperations) returns a subset instead of
a single element of the domain. Multialgebras have been very much studied
in the literature and in the realm of Logic, they were considered by Avron
and his collaborators, under the name of non-deterministic matrices (or
Nmatrices), as a useful semantics tool for characterizing some logics of
formal inconsistency (LFIs). In particular, these logics of formal
inconsistency are not algebraizable by any method, including Blok and
Pigozzi general theory. Carnielli and Coniglio introduced a semantics of
swap structures for LFIs, which are Nmatrices constructed over triples in a
Boolean algebra, generalizing Avron’s non-deterministic matrices. In this
work we develop the first steps towards an algebraic theory of swap
structures for LFIs. The logic mbC is the weakest system in the hierarchy
of LFIs and the system QmbC is the extension of mbC to first-order
language. The goal of this talk is to present the first steps towards a
theory of non-deterministic algebraization of logics by swap structures.
Specifically, a formal study of swap structures for logics of formal
inconsistency is developed, by adapting concepts of universal algebra to
multialgebras in a suitable way and we introduce also an algebraic
semantics for QmbC. From the algebraic point of view these structures
enable us to obtain properties of first-order logic QmbC and in the proof
of the Soundness Theorem we can see interesting particularities of the
first-order swap structures, especially with respect to the Substitution
Lemma. This study opens new avenues for dealing with non-algebraizable
logics through by the more general methodology of multialgebraic semantics.



Talks by Other Groups:


*Logic and Metaphysics Workshop* (CUNY)


*Speaker: *Michael Glanzberg (Rutgers)

*Title: *Models, Model Theory, and Modeling

*Time and Date: *Monday, October 19th 15:15 GMT-5

*Link: *
https://gc-cuny.zoom.us/j/92056358765?pwd=ZjAwcnNvOUNwcXJaTCtqMGdjdXFhdz09

*Meeting ID: *920 5635 8765

*Passcode: *281885

*Abstract: *In this paper, I shall return to the relations between logic
and semantics of natural language.  My main goal is to advance a proposal
about what that relation is.  Logic as used in the study of natural
language—an empirical discipline—functions much like specific kinds of
scientific models. Particularly, I shall suggest, logics can function like
analogical models.  More provocatively, I shall also suggest they can
function like model organisms often do in the biological sciences,
providing a kind of controlled environment for observations.  My focus here
will be on a wide family of logics that are based on model theory, so in
the end, these claims apply equally to model theory itself.  Along the way
towards arguing for my thesis about models in science, I shall also try to
clarify the role of model theory in logic.  At least, I shall suggest, it
can play distinct roles in each domain. It can offer something like
scientific models when it comes to empirical applications, while at the
same time furthering conceptual analysis of a basic notion of logic.


*IU Logic Seminar*


*Speaker: *Siddharth Bhaskar (University of Copenhagen)

*Title: *Traversal-Invariant Definability and Logarithmic Space

*Time and Date: *Wednesday, October 21st 13:00 GMT-5

*Link: *
https://iu.zoom.us/j/95326399432?pwd=VmVUWGxHeG5KQjEzQVozb3pCRHJVZz09

*Meeting ID: *953 2639 9432

*Passcode: *Smullyan

*Abstract: *Presentation invariance is the phenomenon in which a quantity
is defined in terms of some additional structure (or "presentation") but is
then shown to be independent of it. Common examples are the dimension of a
vector space (defined as the cardinality of basis), or Euler characteristic
of a surface (defined in terms of a triangulation). Presentation invariance
is a prominent theme in descriptive complexity theory, which deals with
finite structures encoded as strings, but insists that queries must be
independent of the encoding.

In this talk, I will give characterizations of deterministic and
nondeterministic logarithmic space in terms of first-order queries in the
language of graphs, with invariant usage of a traversal, a particular
linear ordering of the vertices of a graph. This is the first such
characterization of these classes that I know of which does not have an
obvious mechanism for "computation," such as a fixed-point operator;
rather, all the computation is "hidden" in the presentation itself.

I then describe how to extend traversal-invariant definability to classes
of infinite structures. To do this, we need to bypass the Craig
interpolation theorem, which is commonly thought of as an obstacle to
presentation-invariant definability over arbitrary structures. I conclude
with some ideas of how to investigate traversal-invariant definability from
the perspective of abstract model theory. This work is joint with Steven
Lindell and Scott Weinstein.


*GROLOG (Groningen Logic Group)*

*Speaker: *Prof. dr. Allard Tamminga (Universität Greifswald)

*Title: *Expressivity Results for Deontic Logics of Collective Agency

*Time and Date: *Thursday, October 22nd 08:15 GMT-5

*Link: *
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87071955060?pwd=VktPQkppTEk2d08ycEExbTh2Q3FJdz09

*Meeting ID: *870 7195 5060

*Passcode: *561643

*Abstract: *We use a deontic logic of collective agency to study
reducibility questions about collective agency and collective obligations.
The logic that is at the basis of our study is a multi-modal logic in the
tradition of stit ('sees to it that') logics of agency. Our full formal
language has constants for collective and individual deontic admissibility,
modalities for collective and individual agency, and modalities for
collective and individual obligations. We classify its twenty-seven
sublanguages in terms of their expressive power. This classification
enables us to investigate reducibility relations between collective deontic
admissibility, collective agency, and collective obligations, on the one
hand, and individual deontic admissibility, individual agency, and
individual obligations, on the other. (Joint work with Hein Duijf and
Frederik Van De Putte)


*Lógicos em Quarentena*


*Speaker: *Marcos Silva (UFPE)

*Title: *Revision of Logic, Reflexive Equilibrium and Normative
Bidirectionality

*Time and Date: *Thursday, October 22nd 14:00 GMT-5

*Link: *https://meet.google.com/jtw-gsuu-umt

*Abstract: *How could we rationally justify our logical principles, if the
very possibility of rational justification presupposes them? To what extent
is it possible to revise something as fundamental as logical principles?
How could we justify a set of basic principles of logic as the correct one
without circularity or infinite regress? In our paper, we will explore a
pragmatist and normative approach to the epistemic problem of justification
and revision of the most basic logical rules. We defend that logic is a
science analogous to normative disciplines as defended by Prawitz (1978)
and Peregrin e Svoboda (2017). This pragmatist method defends the revision
of logic based on the notion of reflexive equilibrium in relation to our
general theoretical considerations and local instances as particular
inferences, revising any of these elements, whenever necessary, in order to
obtain an acceptable coherence among them. We will develop the notion of
normative bidirectionality and argue that what we call upward normative
pressure adequately expresses the dynamical aspect in the revision of
logical principles.


*UConn Logic Group*


*Speaker: *Tyler Markkanen (Springfield College)

*Title: *Computing Perfect Matchings in Graphs

*Time and Date: *Friday, October 23rd 13:00 GMT-5

*Link: *
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82415300828?pwd=YVEyUGhqRExEL0h0TjFhQnYxcEtCQT09

*Meeting ID: *824 1530 0828

*Passcode: *8q8aAk
*Abstract: *A matching of a graph is any set of edges in which no two edges
share a vertex.  Steffens gave a necessary and sufficient condition for
countable graphs to have a perfect matching (i.e., a matching that covers
all vertices).  We analyze the strength of Stephens’ theorem from the
viewpoint of computability theory and reverse mathematics.  By first
restricting to certain kinds of graphs (e.g., graphs with bounded degree
and locally finite graphs), we classify some weaker versions of Stephens’
theorem.  We then analyze Stephens’ corollary on the existence of maximal
matchings, which is critical to his proof of the main theorem. Finally,
using methods of Aharoni, Magidor, and Shore, we give a partial result that
helps hone in on the computational strength of Stephens’ theorem.  Joint
with Stephen Flood, Matthew Jura, and Oscar Levin.


Other Notes and Announcements:

   -

   *The Logic Supergroup has a YouTube channel!* Recordings of almost all
   talks are available at
   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqOAS8SHP-5nGjYEE2FE6xw  If you are
   part of a member group, are recording talks, and would like the supergroup
   to host them, then let us know! We'd be happy to help.


Yay for logic!

-- 
Você está recebendo esta mensagem porque se inscreveu no grupo "LOGICA-L" dos 
Grupos do Google.
Para cancelar inscrição nesse grupo e parar de receber e-mails dele, envie um 
e-mail para [email protected].
Para ver esta discussão na web, acesse 
https://groups.google.com/a/dimap.ufrn.br/d/msgid/logica-l/CAMTR993oHrT-s1aGLMuVNHZKdbXsLWAWpPPmdYpLaGsO-nccyg%40mail.gmail.com.

Responder a