Online research in philosophy

In 1975, 'An Essay on Knowledge Formation' by H. Törnebohm was published in this Journal. Its content in revised form was included in a work in Swedish of 1983 on knowledge development. HT defines his confirmation criterion in terms of a measure of truth degree T, which is based on a measure of matching M, which is also used as a measure of the degree to which proposition p (an hypothesis) is supported or undermined by another proposition q (the evidence for p), M is defined in terms of a measure of the content C. Here it is argued that HT works with two measures C: (1) a first C, which is defined only for consistent propositions and which really is a measure of content; (2) a final C, which is an inverted measure of probability rather than a measure of content. As an extension of HT's first C, a new content measure, defined also for inconsistent propositions, is constructed. HT's measure M, which is based on his final C, is replaced by one measure of support and one of undermining. Both are based on the new content measure.

A well known fact is that every Lebesgue measurable set is regular, i.e., it includes an $F_{\sigma}$ set of the same measure. We analyze this fact from a metamathematical or foundational standpoint. We study a family of Muchnik degrees corresponding to measuretheoretic regularity at all levels of the effective Borel hierarchy. We prove some new results concerning Nies's notion of LR-reducibility. We build some ω-models of RCA₀ which are relevant for the reverse mathematics of measure-theoretic regularity.

In this paper we ask the question: to what extent do basic set theoretic properties of Loeb measure depend on the nonstandard universe and on properties of the model of set theory in which it lies? We show that, assuming Martin's axiom and κ-saturation, the smallest cover by Loeb measure zero sets must have cardinality less than κ. In contrast to this we show that the additivity of Loeb measure cannot be greater than ω 1 . Define $\operatorname{cof}(H)$ as the smallest cardinality of a family of Loeb measure zero sets which cover every other Loeb measure zero set. We show that $\operatorname{card}(\lfloor\log_2(H)\rfloor) \leq \operatorname{cof}(H) \leq \operatorname{card}(2^H)$ , where card is the external cardinality. We answer a question of Paris and Mills concerning cuts in nonstandard models of number theory. We also present a pair of nonstandard universes $M \preccurlyeq N$ and hyperfinite integer H ∈ M such that H is not enlarged by N, 2 H contains new elements, but every new subset of H has Loeb measure zero. We show that it is consistent that there exists a Sierpiński set in the reals but no Loeb-Sierpiński set in any nonstandard universe. We also show that it is consistent with the failure of the continuum hypothesis that Loeb-Sierpiński sets can exist in some nonstandard universes and even in an ultrapower of a standard universe.

A first order representation (f.o.r.) in topology is an assignment of finitary relational structures of the same type to topological spaces in such a way that homeomorphic spaces get sent to isomorphic structures. We first define the notions "one f.o.r. is at least as expressive as another relative to a class of spaces" and "one class of spaces is definable in another relative to an f.o.r.", and prove some general statements. Following this we compare some well-known classes of spaces and first order representations. A principal result is that if X and Y are two Tichonov spaces whose posets of zero-sets are elementarily equivalent then their respective rings of bounded continuous real-valued functions satisfy the same positive-universal sentences. The proof of this uses the technique of constructing ultraproducts as direct limits of products in a category theoretic setting.

We introduce a path-based measure of convexity to be used in assessing the compactness of legislative districts. Our measure is the probability that a district will contain the shortest path between a randomly selected pair of its' points. The measure is defined relative to exogenous political boundaries and population distributions.

In a previous paper-[17]-we characterized strong measure zero sets of reals in terms of a Ramseyan partition relation on certain subspaces of the Alexandroff duplicate of the unit interval. This framework gave only indirect access to the relevant sets of real numbers. We now work more directly with the sets in question, and since it costs little in additional technicalities, we consider the more general context of metric spaces and prove: 1. If a metric space has a covering property of Hurewicz and has strong measure zero, then its product with any strong measure zero metric space is a strong measure zero metric space (Theorem 1 and Lemma 3). 2. A subspace X of a σ-compact metric space Y has strong measure zero if, and only if, a certain Ramseyan partition relation holds for Y (Theorem 9). 3. A subspace X of a σ-compact metric space Y has strong measure zero in all finite powers if, and only if, a certain Ramseyan partition relation holds for Y (Theorem 12). Then 2 and 3 yield characterizations of strong measure zeroness for σ-totally bounded metric spaces in terms of Ramseyan theorems.

In this paper, I examine the possibility of accounting for the rationality of belief-formation by utilising decision-theoretic considerations. I consider the utilities to be used by such an approach, propose to employ verisimilitude as a measure of cognitive utility, and suggest a natural way of generalising any measure of verisimilitude defined on propositions to partial belief-systems, a generalisation which may enable us to incorporate Popper's insightful notion of verisimilitude within a Bayesian framework. I examine a dilemma generated by the decision-theoretic procedure and consider an adequacy condition (immodesty) designed to ameliorate one of its horns. Finally, I argue in a sceptical vein that no adequate verisimilitude measure can be used decision-theoretically.

There exist well-known conundrums, such as measure theoretic paradoxes and problems of contact, which, within the context of classical physics, can be used to argue against the existence of points in space and space-time. I examine whether quantum mechanics provides additional reasons for supposing that there are no points in space and space-time.

There exist well‐known conundrums, such as measure‐theoretic paradoxes and problems of contact, which, within the context of classical physics, can be used to argue against the existence of points in space and space‐time. I examine whether quantum mechanics provides additional reasons for supposing that there are no points in space and space‐time.

Here are two ways space might be (not the only two): (1) Space is “pointy”. Every finite region has infinitely many infinitesimal, indivisible parts, called points. Points are zero-dimensional atoms of space. In addition to points, there are other kinds of “thin” boundary regions, like surfaces of spheres. Some regions include their boundaries—the closed regions—others exclude them—the open regions—and others include some bits of boundary and exclude others. Moreover, space includes unextended regions whose size is zero. (2) Space is “gunky”.1 Every region contains still smaller regions—there are no spatial atoms. Every region is “thick”—there are no boundary regions. Every region is extended. Pointy theories of space and space-time—such as Euclidean space or Minkowski space—are the kind that figure in modern physics. A rival tradition, most famously associated in the last century with A. N. Whitehead, instead embraces gunk.2 On the Whiteheadian view, points, curves and surfaces are not parts of space, but rather abstractions from the true regions. Three different motivations push philosophers toward gunky space. The first is that the physical space (or space-time) of our universe might be gunky. We posit spatial reasons to explain what goes on with physical objects; thus the main reason..