Subjects -> MATHEMATICS (Total: 1013 journals)     - APPLIED MATHEMATICS (92 journals)    - GEOMETRY AND TOPOLOGY (23 journals)    - MATHEMATICS (714 journals)    - MATHEMATICS (GENERAL) (45 journals)    - NUMERICAL ANALYSIS (26 journals)    - PROBABILITIES AND MATH STATISTICS (113 journals) MATHEMATICS (714 journals)            First | 1 2 3 4
 Showing 601 - 538 of 538 Journals sorted alphabetically Results in Control and Optimization Results in Mathematics Results in Nonlinear Analysis Review of Symbolic Logic       (Followers: 2) Reviews in Mathematical Physics       (Followers: 1) Revista Baiana de Educação Matemática Revista Bases de la Ciencia Revista BoEM - Boletim online de Educação Matemática Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas       (Followers: 1) Revista de Ciencias Revista de Educación Matemática Revista de la Escuela de Perfeccionamiento en Investigación Operativa Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas Revista de Matemática : Teoría y Aplicaciones       (Followers: 1) Revista Digital: Matemática, Educación e Internet Revista Electrónica de Conocimientos, Saberes y Prácticas Revista Integración : Temas de Matemáticas Revista Internacional de Sistemas Revista Latinoamericana de Etnomatemática Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa Revista Matemática Complutense Revista REAMEC : Rede Amazônica de Educação em Ciências e Matemática Revista SIGMA Ricerche di Matematica RMS : Research in Mathematics & Statistics Royal Society Open Science       (Followers: 7) Russian Journal of Mathematical Physics Russian Mathematics Sahand Communications in Mathematical Analysis Sampling Theory, Signal Processing, and Data Analysis São Paulo Journal of Mathematical Sciences Science China Mathematics       (Followers: 1) Science Progress       (Followers: 1) Sciences & Technologie A : sciences exactes Selecta Mathematica       (Followers: 1) SeMA Journal Semigroup Forum       (Followers: 1) Set-Valued and Variational Analysis SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics       (Followers: 11) SIAM Journal on Computing       (Followers: 11) SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization       (Followers: 18) SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics       (Followers: 8) SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics       (Followers: 3) SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science       (Followers: 1) SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications       (Followers: 3) SIAM Journal on Optimization       (Followers: 12) Siberian Advances in Mathematics Siberian Mathematical Journal Sigmae SILICON SN Partial Differential Equations and Applications Soft Computing       (Followers: 7) Statistics and Computing       (Followers: 13) Stochastic Analysis and Applications       (Followers: 2) Stochastic Partial Differential Equations : Analysis and Computations       (Followers: 1) Stochastic Processes and their Applications       (Followers: 5) Stochastics and Dynamics Studia Scientiarum Mathematicarum Hungarica       (Followers: 1) Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Informatica Studies In Applied Mathematics       (Followers: 1) Studies in Mathematical Sciences       (Followers: 1) Superficies y vacio Suska Journal of Mathematics Education       (Followers: 1) Swiss Journal of Geosciences       (Followers: 1) Synthesis Lectures on Algorithms and Software in Engineering       (Followers: 2) Synthesis Lectures on Mathematics and Statistics       (Followers: 1) Tamkang Journal of Mathematics Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publications Teaching Mathematics       (Followers: 10) Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA       (Followers: 4) Teaching Statistics       (Followers: 8) Technometrics       (Followers: 8) The Journal of Supercomputing       (Followers: 1) The Mathematica journal The Mathematical Gazette       (Followers: 1) The Mathematical Intelligencer The Ramanujan Journal The VLDB Journal       (Followers: 2) Theoretical and Mathematical Physics       (Followers: 7) Theory and Applications of Graphs Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis Transactions of the London Mathematical Society       (Followers: 1) Transformation Groups Turkish Journal of Mathematics Ukrainian Mathematical Journal Uniciencia Uniform Distribution Theory Unisda Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Unnes Journal of Mathematics       (Followers: 2) Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education       (Followers: 2) Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research       (Followers: 1) Ural Mathematical Journal Vestnik Samarskogo Gosudarstvennogo Tekhnicheskogo Universiteta. Seriya Fiziko-Matematicheskie Nauki Vestnik St. Petersburg University: Mathematics VFAST Transactions on Mathematics       (Followers: 1) Vietnam Journal of Mathematics Vinculum Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Ser. Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics       (Followers: 2) Water SA       (Followers: 1) Water Waves Zamm-Zeitschrift Fuer Angewandte Mathematik Und Mechanik       (Followers: 1) ZDM       (Followers: 2) Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik       (Followers: 2) Zeitschrift fur Energiewirtschaft Zetetike

First | 1 2 3 4

Similar Journals
 Review of Symbolic LogicJournal Prestige (SJR): 1.049 Citation Impact (citeScore): 1Number of Followers: 2      Subscription journal ISSN (Print) 1755-0203 - ISSN (Online) 1755-0211 Published by Cambridge University Press  [353 journals]
• RSL volume 15 issue 2 Cover and Front matter

Pages: 1 - 4
PubDate: 2022-05-19
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020322000168

• RSL volume 15 issue 2 Cover and Back matter

Pages: 1 - 2
PubDate: 2022-05-19
DOI: 10.1017/S175502032200017X

• MODES OF CONVERGENCE TO THE TRUTH: STEPS TOWARD A BETTER EPISTEMOLOGY OF
INDUCTION

Authors: LIN; HANTI
Pages: 277 - 310
Abstract: Evaluative studies of inductive inferences have been pursued extensively with mathematical rigor in many disciplines, such as statistics, econometrics, computer science, and formal epistemology. Attempts have been made in those disciplines to justify many different kinds of inductive inferences, to varying extents. But somehow those disciplines have said almost nothing to justify a most familiar kind of induction, an example of which is this: “We’ve seen this many ravens and they all are black, so all ravens are black.” This is enumerative induction in its full strength. For it does not settle with a weaker conclusion (such as “the ravens observed in the future will all be black”); nor does it proceed with any additional premise (such as the statistical IID assumption). The goal of this paper is to take some initial steps toward a justification for the full version of enumerative induction, against counterinduction, and against the skeptical policy. The idea is to explore various epistemic ideals, mathematically defined as different modes of convergence to the truth, and look for one that is weak enough to be achievable and strong enough to justify a norm that governs both the long run and the short run. So the proposal is learning-theoretic in essence, but a Bayesian version is developed as well.
PubDate: 2022-01-03
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020321000605

• A FIRST-ORDER FRAMEWORK FOR INQUISITIVE MODAL LOGIC

Authors: MEISSNER; SILKE, OTTO, MARTIN
Pages: 311 - 333
Abstract: We present a natural standard translation of inquisitive modal logic into first-order logic over the natural two-sorted relational representations of the intended models, which captures the built-in higher-order features of . This translation is based on a graded notion of flatness that ties the inherent second-order, team-semantic features of over information states to subsets or tuples of bounded size. A natural notion of pseudo-models, which relaxes the non-elementary constraints on the intended models, gives rise to an elementary, purely model-theoretic proof of the compactness property for . Moreover, we prove a Hennessy-Milner theorem for , which crucially uses -saturated pseudo-models and the new standard translation. As corollaries we also obtain van Benthem style characterisation theorems.
PubDate: 2021-08-31
DOI: 10.1017/S175502032100037X

• GROUPS OF WORLDVIEW TRANSFORMATIONS IMPLIED BY EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL
PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY OVER ARBITRARY ORDERED FIELDS

Authors: MADARÁSZ; JUDIT X., STANNETT, MIKE, SZÉKELY, GERGELY
Pages: 334 - 361
Abstract: In 1978, Yu. F. Borisov presented an axiom system using a few basic assumptions and four explicit axioms, the fourth being a formulation of the relativity principle, and he demonstrated that this axiom system had (up to choice of units) only two models: a relativistic one in which worldview transformations are Poincaré transformations and a classical one in which they are Galilean. In this paper, we reformulate Borisov’s original four axioms within an intuitively simple, but strictly formal, first-order logic framework, and convert his basic background assumptions into explicit axioms. Instead of assuming that the structure of physical quantities is the field of real numbers, we assume only that they form an ordered field. This allows us to investigate how Borisov’s theorem depends on the structure of quantities.We demonstrate (as our main contribution) how to construct Euclidean, Galilean, and Poincaré models of Borisov’s axiom system over every non-Archimedean field. We also demonstrate the existence of an infinite descending chain of models and transformation groups in each of these three cases, something that is not possible over Archimedean fields.As an application, we note that there is a model of Borisov’s axioms that satisfies the relativity principle, and in which the worldview transformations are Euclidean isometries. Over the field of reals it is easy to eliminate this model using natural axioms concerning time’s arrow and the absence of instantaneous motion. In the case of non-Archimedean fields, however, the Euclidean isometries appear intrinsically as worldview transformations in models of Borisov’s axioms, and neither the assumption of time’s arrow, nor the rejection of instantaneous motion, can eliminate them.
PubDate: 2021-03-23
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020321000149

• BISIMULATIONS FOR KNOWING HOW LOGICS

Authors: FERVARI; RAUL, VELÁZQUEZ-QUESADA, FERNANDO R., WANG, YANJING
Pages: 450 - 486
Abstract: As a new type of epistemic logics, the logics of knowing how capture the high-level epistemic reasoning about the knowledge of various plans to achieve certain goals. Existing work on these logics focuses on axiomatizations; this paper makes the first study of their model theoretical properties. It does so by introducing suitable notions of bisimulation for a family of five knowing how logics based on different notions of plans. As an application, we study and compare the expressive power of these logics.
PubDate: 2021-03-22
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020321000101

• VOLUNTARY IMAGINATION: A FINE-GRAINED ANALYSIS

Authors: CANAVOTTO; ILARIA, BERTO, FRANCESCO, GIORDANI, ALESSANDRO
Pages: 362 - 387
Abstract: We study imagination as reality-oriented mental simulation (ROMS): the activity of simulating nonactual scenarios in one’s mind, to investigate what would happen if they were realized. Three connected questions concerning ROMS are: What is the logic, if there is one, of such an activity' How can we gain new knowledge via it' What is voluntary in it and what is not' We address them by building a list of core features of imagination as ROMS, drawing on research in cognitive psychology and the philosophy of mind. We then provide a logic of imagination as ROMS which models such features, combining techniques from epistemic logic, action logic, and subject matter semantics. Our logic comprises a modal propositional language with non-monotonic imagination operators, a formal semantics, and an axiomatization.
PubDate: 2020-06-29
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020320000039

• TWO LEVEL CREDIBILITY-LIMITED REVISIONS

Authors: GARAPA; MARCO
Pages: 388 - 408
Abstract: In this paper, we propose a new kind of nonprioritized operator which we call two level credibility-limited revision. When revising through a two level credibility-limited revision there are two levels of credibility and one of incredibility. When revising by a sentence at the highest level of credibility, the operator behaves as a standard revision, if the sentence is at the second level of credibility, then the outcome of the revision process coincides with a standard contraction by the negation of that sentence. If the sentence is not credible, then the original belief set remains unchanged. In this article, we axiomatically characterize several classes of two level credibility-limited revision operators.
PubDate: 2020-07-21
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020320000283

• HOW MUCH PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC SUFFICES FOR ROSSER’S ESSENTIAL
UNDECIDABILITY THEOREM'

Authors: BADIA; GUILLERMO, CINTULA, PETR, HÁJEK, PETR, TEDDER, ANDREW
Pages: 487 - 504
Abstract: In this paper we explore the following question: how weak can a logic be for Rosser’s essential undecidability result to be provable for a weak arithmetical theory' It is well known that Robinson’s Q is essentially undecidable in intuitionistic logic, and P. Hájek proved it in the fuzzy logic BL for Grzegorczyk’s variant of Q which interprets the arithmetic operations as nontotal nonfunctional relations. We present a proof of essential undecidability in a much weaker substructural logic and for a much weaker arithmetic theory, a version of Robinson’s R (with arithmetic operations also interpreted as mere relations). Our result is based on a structural version of the undecidability argument introduced by Kleene and we show that it goes well beyond the scope of the Boolean, intuitionistic, or fuzzy logic.
PubDate: 2020-06-29
DOI: 10.1017/S175502032000012X

• EPISTEMIC MULTILATERAL LOGIC

Authors: INCURVATI; LUCA, SCHLÖDER, JULIAN J.
Pages: 505 - 536
Abstract: We present epistemic multilateral logic, a general logical framework for reasoning involving epistemic modality. Standard bilateral systems use propositional formulae marked with signs for assertion and rejection. Epistemic multilateral logic extends standard bilateral systems with a sign for the speech act of weak assertion (Incurvati & Schlöder, 2019) and an operator for epistemic modality. We prove that epistemic multilateral logic is sound and complete with respect to the modal logic modulo an appropriate translation. The logical framework developed provides the basis for a novel, proof-theoretic approach to the study of epistemic modality. To demonstrate the fruitfulness of the approach, we show how the framework allows us to reconcile classical logic with the contradictoriness of so-called Yalcin sentences and to distinguish between various inference patterns on the basis of the epistemic properties they preserve.
PubDate: 2020-07-21
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020320000313

• A NOTE ON THE SEQUENT CALCULI ${{{\bf G3}[{\bf mic}]}}^{=}$

Authors: PARLAMENTO; FRANCO, PREVIALE, FLAVIO
Pages: 537 - 551
Abstract: We show that the replacement rule of the sequent calculi in [8] can be replaced by the simpler rule in which one of the principal formulae is not repeated in the premiss.
PubDate: 2020-07-02
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020320000155

• MATHEMATICAL RIGOR AND PROOF

Authors: HAMAMI; YACIN
Pages: 409 - 449
Abstract: Mathematical proof is the primary form of justification for mathematical knowledge, but in order to count as a proper justification for a piece of mathematical knowledge, a mathematical proof must be rigorous. What does it mean then for a mathematical proof to be rigorous' According to what I shall call the standard view, a mathematical proof is rigorous if and only if it can be routinely translated into a formal proof. The standard view is almost an orthodoxy among contemporary mathematicians, and is endorsed by many logicians and philosophers, but it has also been heavily criticized in the philosophy of mathematics literature. Progress on the debate between the proponents and opponents of the standard view is, however, currently blocked by a major obstacle, namely, the absence of a precise formulation of it. To remedy this deficiency, I undertake in this paper to provide a precise formulation and a thorough evaluation of the standard view of mathematical rigor. The upshot of this study is that the standard view is more robust to criticisms than it transpires from the various arguments advanced against it, but that it also requires a certain conception of how mathematical proofs are judged to be rigorous in mathematical practice, a conception that can be challenged on empirical grounds by exhibiting rigor judgments of mathematical proofs in mathematical practice conflicting with it.
PubDate: 2019-10-04
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020319000443

JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762