Argues that the key distinction between human and nonhuman social cognition consists in our complex, diverse and flexible capacities to shape each other's minds in ways that make them easier to interpret.

The aim of this note is to show (Theorem 1.6) that in each of the cases: = {, }, or {, , }, or {, , } there are uncountably many -intermediate logics which are not finitely approximable. This result together with the results known in literature allow us to conclude (Theorem 2.2) that for each : either all -intermediate logics are finitely approximate or there are uncountably many of them which lack the property.

The phenomenological reflection of „deception“ and „self-deception“ occupies a central place in Max Scheler’s whole phenomenological period. In contrast with „self-givenness“, „deception“ essentially means an inappropriate way of givenness, and „self-deception“ indicates an inappropriate way of givenness of the „self“. Based on the further criticisms and reflections on F. Brentano’s and E. Husserl’s related thoughts, Scheler distinguished „self-perception“ from „inner perception“, and attributed the primordial position to the „inner perception of the other“ via criticizing the „deception of self-perception“. He then (...) obtained an account of a truly primary way of grasping the other, namely, the primary „self-givenness“ of „the other’s person“. This contributes to the possibility of Scheler’s „phenomenology of intersubjectivity“. In this paper, I will argue that Scheler’s phenomenological criticism of „self-deception“ and his phenomenological analysis of „inner perception of the other“ function as an „introduction“ to his „phenomenology of intersubjectivity“. (shrink)

Using ideas from Murskii [3], Tokarz [4] and Wroski [7] we construct some strongly finite consequence operation having 2%0 standard strengthenings. In this way we give the affirmative answer to the following question, stated in Tokarz [4]: are there strongly finite logics with the degree of maximality greater than 0?

The aim of the paper is to prove the result announced by the title.

We prove that each proper ideal in the lattice of axiomatic, resp. standard strengthenings of the intuitionistic propositional logic is of cardinality 20. But, each proper ideal in the lattice of structural strengthenings of the intuitionistic propositional logic is of cardinality 220. As a corollary we have that each of these three lattices has no atoms.

We propose a new schema for the deduction theorem and prove that the deductive system S of a prepositional logic L fulfills the proposed schema if and only if there exists a finite set A(p, q) of propositional formulae involving only prepositional letters p and q such that A(p, p) L and p, A(p, q) s q.

Let q(K) denote the least quasivariety containing a given class K of algebraic structures. Mal'cev [3] has proved that q(K) = ISP r(K)(1). Another description of q(K) is given in Grätzer and Lakser [2], that is, q(K) = ISPP u(K)2. We give here other proofs of these results. The method which enables us to do that is borrowed from prepositional logics (cf. [1]).

Motivated by the search for a logic for polynomial time, we study rank logic which extends fixed-point logic with counting by operators that determine the rank of matrices over finite fields. WhileFPRcan express most of the known queries that separateFPCfromPtime, almost nothing was known about the limitations of its expressive power.In our first main result we show that the extensions ofFPCby rank operators over different prime fields are incomparable. This solves an open question posed by Dawar and Holm and also (...) implies that rank logic, in its original definition with a distinct rank operator for every field, fails to capture polynomial time. In particular we show that the variant of rank logic${\text{FPR}}^{\text{*}}$with an operator that uniformly expresses the matrix rank over finite fields is more expressive thanFPR.One important step in our proof is to consider solvability logicFPSwhich is the analogous extension ofFPCby quantifiers which express the solvability problem for linear equation systems over finite fields. Solvability logic can easily be embedded into rank logic, but it is open whether it is a strict fragment. In our second main result we give a partial answer to this question: in the absence of counting, rank operators are strictly more expressive than solvability quantifiers. (shrink)