We examine the effective categoricity of equivalence structures via Ershov's difference hierarchy. We explore various kinds of categoricity available by distinguishing three different notions of isomorphism available in this hierarchy. We prove several results relating our notions of categoricity to computable equivalence relations: for example, we show that, for such relations, computable categoricity is equivalent to our notion of weak ω-c.e. categoricity, and that $\Delta _2^0 $ -categoricity is equivalent to our notion of graph-ω-c.e. categoricity.

For a computable structure \, if there is a computable infinitary Scott sentence, then the complexity of this sentence gives an upper bound for the complexity of the index set \\). If we can also show that \\) is m-complete at that level, then there is a correspondence between the complexity of the index set and the complexity of a Scott sentence for the structure. There are results that suggest that these complexities will always match. However, it was (...) shown in Knight and McCoy that there is a structure ) for which the index set is m-complete \, though there is no computable \ Scott sentence. In the present paper, we give an example of a particular equivalence structure for which the index set is m-complete \ but for which there is no computable \ Scott sentence. There is, however, a computable \ pseudo-Scott sentence for the structure, that is, a sentence that acts as a Scott sentence if we only consider computable structures. (shrink)

We investigate effective categoricity of computable equivalence structures . We show that is computably categorical if and only if has only finitely many finite equivalence classes, or has only finitely many infinite classes, bounded character, and at most one finite k such that there are infinitely many classes of size k. We also prove that all computably categorical structures are relatively computably categorical, that is, have computably enumerable Scott families of existential formulas. Since all computable equivalence structures (...) are relatively categorical, we further investigate when they are categorical. We also obtain results on the index sets of computable equivalence structures. (shrink)

We solve a problem posed by Goncharov and Knight 639–681, 757]). More specifically, we produce an effective Friedberg enumeration of computable equivalence structures, up to isomorphism. We also prove that there exists an effective Friedberg enumeration of all isomorphism types of infinite computable equivalence structures.

We study computability theoretic properties of and equivalence structures and how they differ from computable equivalence structures or equivalence structures that belong to the Ershov difference hierarchy. Our investigation includes the complexity of isomorphisms between equivalence structures and between equivalence structures.

We study the algorithmic complexity of embeddings between bi-embeddable equivalence structures. We define the notions of computable bi-embeddable categoricity, \ bi-embeddable categoricity, and degrees of bi-embeddable categoricity. These notions mirror the classical notions used to study the complexity of isomorphisms between structures. We show that the notions of \ bi-embeddable categoricity and relative \ bi-embeddable categoricity coincide for equivalence structures for \. We also prove that computable equivalence structures have degree of bi-embeddable categoricity \, or \. We (...) furthermore obtain results on the index set complexity of computable equivalence structure with respect to bi-embeddability. (shrink)

This Element explores what it means for two theories in physics to be equivalent, and what lessons can be drawn about their structure as a result. It does so through a twofold approach. On the one hand, it provides a synoptic overview of the logical tools that have been employed in recent philosophy of physics to explore these topics: definition, translation, Ramsey sentences, and category theory. On the other, it provides a detailed case study of how these ideas may (...) be applied to understand the dynamical and spatiotemporal structure of Newtonian mechanics - in particular, in light of the symmetries of Newtonian theory. In so doing, it brings together a great deal of exciting recent work in the literature, and is sure to be a valuable companion for all those interested in these topics. (shrink)

We generalize a well-known theorem binding the elementary equivalence relation on the level of PAC fields and the isomorphism type of their absolute Galois groups. Our results concern two cases: saturated PAC structures and nonsaturated PAC structures.

It has been suggested that we can tell whether two theories are equivalent by comparing the structure that they ascribe to the world. If two theories posit different structures, then they must be i...

A standard line in the contemporary philosophical literature has it that physical theories are equivalent only when they agree on their empirical content, where this empirical content is often understood as being encoded in the equations of motion of those theories. In this article, we question whether it is indeed the case that the empirical content of a theory is exhausted by its equations of motion, showing that (for example) considerations of boundary conditions play a key role in the empirical (...) equivalence (or otherwise) of theories. Having argued for this, we show that philosophical claims made by Weatherall (2016) that electromagnetism in the Faraday tensor formalism is equivalent to electromagnetism in the vector potential formalism, and by Knox (2011) that general relativity is equivalent to teleparallel gravity, can both be called into question. We then show that properly considering the role of boundary conditions in theory structure can potentially restore these claims of equivalence and close with some remarks on the pragmatics of adjudications on theory identity. (shrink)

I argue that the best spacetime setting for Newtonian gravitation (NG) is the curved spacetime setting associated with geometrized Newtonian gravitation (GNG). Appreciation of the ‘Newtonian equivalence principle’ leads us to conclude that the gravitational field in NG itself is a gauge quantity, and that the freely falling frames are naturally identified with inertial frames. In this context, the spacetime structure of NG is represented not by the flat neo-Newtonian connection usually made explicit in formulations, but by the (...) sum of the flat connection and the gravitational field. 1 Introduction2 Newtonian Gravity: The Orthodox Approach3 Newtonian Gravity: Additional Symmetries4 Cosmological Considerations5 A Newtonian Equivalence Principle: Inertial Frames in Newtonian Gravitation6 Theory Equivalence?7 Conclusion. (shrink)

We prove an Ax-Kochen-Ershov like transfer principle for groups acting on groups. The simplest case is the following: let B be a soluble group acting on an abelian group G so that G is a torsion-free divisible module over the group ring Z[B], then the theory of B determines the one of the two-sorted structure $\langle G, B, *\rangle$ , where * is the action of B on G. More generally, we show a similar principle for structures $\langle G, (...) B, *\rangle$ , where G is a torsion-free divisible module over the quotient of Z[B] by the annulator of G. Two applications come immediately from this result: First, for not necessarily commutative domains, where we consider the action of a subgroup of the invertible elements on the additive group. We obtain then the decidability of a weakened structure of ring, with partial multiplication. The second application is to pure groups. The semi-direct product of G by B is bi- interpretable with our structure $\langle G, B, *\rangle$ . Thus, we obtain stable decidable groups that are not linear over a field. (shrink)

We present some equivalent conditions for a quasivariety \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal {K}}$$\end{document} of structures to be generated by a single structure. The first such condition, called the embedding property was found by A.I. Mal′tsev in [6]. It says that if \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\bf A}, {\bf B} \in \mathcal {K}}$$\end{document} are nontrivial, then there exists \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\bf C} \in (...) \mathcal{K}}$$\end{document} such that A and B are embeddable into C. One of our equivalent conditions states that the set of quasi-identities valid in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{K}}$$\end{document} is closed under a certain Gentzen type rule which is due to J. Łoś and R. Suszko [5]. (shrink)

This paper presents a simple pair of first-order theories that are not definitionally (nor Morita) equivalent, yet are mutually conservatively translatable and mutually 'surjectively' translatable. We use these results to clarify the overall geography of standards of equivalence and to show that the structural commitments that theories make behave in a more subtle manner than has been recognized.

Political sociologists interested in corporate power have focused increasingly on the extent to which the business community is cohesive. Studies of cohesion, however, frequently contain either no definition or operational definitions with little theoretical rationale. This paper examines the uses of the term cohesion in the power structure literature as well as in classical and contemporary sociological theory. I argue that: (1) cohesion is most appropriately defined as an objective characteristic of a social structure; (2) to understand a (...) group's power, we should focus on the extent to which its members behave similarly; and (3) the concept of structural equivalence may be as likely to capture the processes of interest to power structure researchers as the concept of cohesion. Findings from a study of corporate political behavior are presented to illustrate this argument. (shrink)

The thesis of the empirical underdetermination of theories (U-thesis) maintains that there are incompatible theories which are empirically equivalent. Whether this is an interesting thesis depends on how the term incompatible is understood. In this paper a structural explication is proposed. More precisely, the U-thesis is studied in the framework of the model theoretic or emantic approach according to which theories are not to be taken as linguistic entities, but rather as families of mathematical structures. Theories of similarity structures are (...) studied as a paradigmatic case. The structural approach further reveals that the U-thesis is related to problems of uniqueness in the representational theory of measurement, questions of geometric conventionalism, and problems of structural underdetermination in mathematics. (shrink)

We study the degree structure of the ω-c.e., n-c.e., and Π10 equivalence relations under the computable many-one reducibility. In particular, we investigate for each of these classes of degrees the most basic questions about the structure of the partial order. We prove the existence of the greatest element for the ω-c.e. and n-computably enumerable equivalence relations. We provide computable enumerations of the degrees of ω-c.e., n-c.e., and Π10 equivalence relations. We prove that for all the (...) degree classes considered, upward density holds and downward density fails. (shrink)

We examine the degree structure $\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {ER}}}$ of equivalence relations on $\omega $ under computable reducibility. We examine when pairs of degrees have a least upper bound. In particular, we show that sufficiently incomparable pairs of degrees do not have a least upper bound but that some incomparable degrees do, and we characterize the degrees which have a least upper bound with every finite equivalence relation. We show that the natural classes of finite, light, and (...) dark degrees are definable in $\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {ER}}}$. We show that every equivalence relation has continuum many self-full strong minimal covers, and that $\mathbf {d}\oplus \mathbf {\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {Id}}}_1}$ needn’t be a strong minimal cover of a self-full degree $\mathbf {d}$. Finally, we show that the theory of the degree structure $\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {ER}}}$ as well as the theories of the substructures of light degrees and of dark degrees are each computably isomorphic with second-order arithmetic. (shrink)

In this note we develop a method for constructing finite totally-ordered m-zeroids and prove that there exists a categorical equivalence between the category of finite, totally-ordered m-zeroids and the category of pseudo Łukasiewicz-like implicators.

A first-order sentence is quasi-modal if its class of models is closed under the modal validity preserving constructions of disjoint unions, inner substructures and bounded epimorphic images. It is shown that all members of the proper class of canonical structures of a modal logic Λ have the same quasi-modal first-order theory Ψ Λ . The models of this theory determine a modal logic Λ e which is the largest sublogic of Λ to be determined by an elementary class. The canonical (...) structures of Λ e also have Ψ Λ as their quasi-modal theory. In addition there is a largest sublogic Λ c of Λ that is determined by its canonical structures, and again the canonical structures of Λ c have Ψ Λ are their quasi-modal theory. Thus Ψ Λ = Ψ Λ c = Ψ Λ e . Finally, we show that all finite structures validating Λ are models of Ψ Λ , and that if Λ is determined by its finite structures, then Ψ Λ is equal to the quasi-modal theory of these structures. (shrink)

A first-order sentence isquasi-modalif its class of models is closed under the modal validity preserving constructions of disjoint unions, inner substructures and bounded epimorphic images.It is shown that all members of the proper class of canonical structures of a modal logicΛhave the same quasi-modal first-order theoryΨΛ. The models of this theory determine a modal logicΛewhich is the largest sublogic ofΛto be determined by an elementary class. The canonical structures ofΛealso haveΨΛas their quasi-modal theory.In addition there is a largest sublogicΛeofΛthat is (...) determined by its canonical structures, and again the canonical structures ofΛehaveΨΛare their quasi-modal theory. Thus. Finally, we show that all finite structures validatingΛare models ofΨΛ, and that ifΛis determined by its finite structures, thenΨΛis equal to the quasi-modal theory of these structures. (shrink)

In [2], Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir prove that the simple phrase structure grammars dened by Chomsky are equivalent in a cer- tain sense to Bar-Hillel's bidirectional categorial grammars . On the other hand, Cohen [3] proves the equivalence of the latter ones to what he calls free categorial grammars . They are closely related to Lambek's syntactic calculus which is, in turn, based on the idea due to Ajdukiewicz [1]. For some reasons, Cohen's proof seems to be at (...) least in- complete. Here, I give a short outline of the direct proof of the equivalence between SF G's and F CG's. (shrink)

This article examines a series of Greek myths which establish a structural equivalence between two motifs, stoning and blinding; the two penalties either substitute for one another in alternative versions of a single story, or appear in sequence as repayments in kind. After reviewing other theories concerning the motives behind blinding and lapidation, I argue that both punishments-together with petrifaction and live imprisonment, which frequently figure alongside the other motifs-are directed against individuals whose crimes generate pollution. This miasma affects (...) not only the perpetrator of the deed, but risks spreading to the community at large, and prompts measures aimed at containing the source of the disease. Both blinding and lapidation are designed to cordon off the contaminant by removing him from all visual and tactile contact with other men. But it is not only the nature of the crimes that explains the kinship between the two penalties. I further argue that the attributes Greek thinking assigned to stones, repeatedly characterized as unseeing, mute, immobile, and dry, and symbolic of the condition of the dead, elucidate the connections and clarify the antagonism that myth suggests between lapidation and sight. Stoning, blinding, imprisonment, and petrifaction all consign the criminal to an existence exactly parallel to that of the stone, stripping him of the properties that distinguish the living from the dead, and making him both unseeing and unseen. Three examples drawn from archaic and classical literature provide examples of these interactions between stones, blindness, invisibility, and death: the snake portent sent by Zeus in Book 2 of the Iliad, the Perseus myth, and Hermes' activity in both the Homeric Hymn to Hermes and Aeschylus' Choephoroe. (shrink)

In this paper we investigate a categorical equivalence between square root qMV-algehras (a variety of algebras arising from quantum computation) and a category of preordered semigroups.

In [2], Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir prove that the simple phrase structure grammars (SPGs) defined by Chomsky are equivalent in a certain sense to Bar-Hillel's bidirectional categorial grammars (BCGs). On the other hand, Cohen [3] proves the equivalence of the latter ones to what the calls free categorial grammars (FCGs). They are closely related to Lambek's syntactic calculus which, in turn, is based on the idea due to Ajdukiewicz [1]. For the reasons which will be discussed in the (...) last section, Cohen's proof seems to be at least incomplete. This paper yields a direct proof of the equivalence ofFCGs andSPGs. (shrink)

This paper is based on Lectures 1, 2 and 4 in the series of ten lectures titled “Algebraic Structures for Logic” that Professor Blok and I presented at the Twenty Third Holiday Mathematics Symposium held at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico, January 8-12, 1999. These three lectures presented a new approach to the algebraization of deductive systems, and after the symposium we made plans to publish a joint paper, to be written by Blok, further developing these (...) ideas. That project was still incomplete when Blok died. In fact, there is no indication that he had prepared a draft of the paper, and we do not know what new material he intended to include. I am therefore not in a position to complete the project as he had envisioned it. So, I have settled for the more limited objective of presenting the material from the three lectures, leaving to others the task of adapting the techniques used there to more general situations. (shrink)

The problem of theoretical equivalence is traditionally understood as the problem of specifying when superficially dissimilar accounts of the world are reformulations of a single underlying theory. One important strategy for answering this question has been to appeal to formal relations between theoretical structures. This article presents two reasons to think that such an approach will be unsuccessful and suggests an alternative account of theoretical equivalence, based on the notion of interpretive equivalence, in which the problem is (...) merely an instance of a broader problem in the philosophy of physics. I thus conclude that there is no distinctive problem of theoretical equivalence at all. Two difficulties my approach raises for realist replies to the threat of underdetermination are then discussed, with particular emphasis on a recent reply by Norton. 1 Introduction2 Methodological Confusion3 Asymmetrical Equivalence3.1 Maxwell’s field equations3.2 Classical Lagrangian dynamics4 Formal Approaches: Quine and Glymour5 Theoretical Equivalence as Interpretive Equivalence6 Theoretical Equivalence without Interpretive Judgement?7 Lessons for Underdetermination. (shrink)

I criticise the view that the relativity and equivalence principles are consequences of the small-scale structure of the metric in general relativity, by arguing that these principles also apply to systems with non-trivial self-gravitation and hence non-trivial spacetime curvature (such as black holes). I provide an alternative account, incorporating aspects of the criticised view, which allows both principles to apply to systems with self-gravity.

Louveau and Rosendal [5] have shown that the relation of bi-embeddability for countable graphs as well as for many other natural classes of countable structures is complete under Borel reducibility for analytic equivalence relations. This is in strong contrast to the case of the isomorphism relation, which as an equivalence relation on graphs (or on any class of countable structures consisting of the models of a sentence of L ω ₁ ω ) is far from complete (see [5, (...) 2]). In this article we strengthen the results of [5] by showing that not only does bi-embeddability give rise to analytic equivalence relations which are complete under Borel reducibility, but in fact any analytic equivalence relation is Borel equivalent to such a relation. This result and the techniques introduced answer questions raised in [5] about the comparison between isomorphism and bi-embeddability. Finally, as in [5] our results apply not only to classes of countable structures defined by sentences of ω ₁ ω , but also to discrete metric or ultrametric Polish spaces, compact metrizable topological spaces and separable Banach spaces, with various notions of embeddability appropriate for these classes, as well as to actions of Polish monoids. (shrink)

The author endeavours to show two things: first, that Schrödingers (and Eckarts) demonstration in March (September) 1926 of the equivalence of matrix mechanics, as created by Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and Dirac in 1925, and wave mechanics, as created by Schrödinger in 1926, is not foolproof; and second, that it could not have been foolproof, because at the time matrix mechanics and wave mechanics were neither mathematically nor empirically equivalent. That they were is the Equivalence Myth. In order to (...) make the theories equivalent and to prove this, one has to leave the historical scene of 1926 and wait until 1932, when von Neumann finished his magisterial edifice. During the period 1926–1932 the original families of mathematical structures of matrix mechanics and of wave mechanics were stretched, parts were chopped off and novel structures were added. To Procrustean places we go, where we can demonstrate the mathematical, empirical and ontological equivalence of ‘the final versions of’ matrix mechanics and wave mechanics. -/- The present paper claims to be a comprehensive analysis of one of the pivotal papers in the history of quantum mechanics: Schrödingers equivalence paper. Since the analysis is performed from the perspective of Suppes structural view (‘semantic view’) of physical theories, the present paper can be regarded not only as a morsel of the internal history of quantum mechanics, but also as a morsel of applied philosophy of science. The paper is self-contained and presupposes only basic knowledge of quantum mechanics. For reasons of length, the paper is published in two parts; Part I appeared in the previous issue of this journal. Section 1 contains, besides an introduction, also the papers five claims and a preview of the arguments supporting these claims; so Part I, Section 1 may serve as a summary of the paper for those readers who are not interested in the detailed arguments. (shrink)

I examine notions of equivalence between logics (understood as languages interpreted model-theoretically) and develop two new ones that invoke not only the algebraic but also the string-theoretic structure of the underlying language. As an application, I show how to construe modal operator languages as what might be called typographical notational variants of _bona fide_ first-order languages.

The author endeavours to show two things: first, that Schrödingers (and Eckarts) demonstration in March (September) 1926 of the equivalence of matrix mechanics, as created by Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and Dirac in 1925, and wave mechanics, as created by Schrödinger in 1926, is not foolproof; and second, that it could not have been foolproof, because at the time matrix mechanics and wave mechanics were neither mathematically nor empirically equivalent. That they were is the Equivalence Myth. In order to (...) make the theories equivalent and to prove this, one has to leave the historical scene of 1926 and wait until 1932, when von Neumann finished his magisterial edifice. During the period 1926–1932 the original families of mathematical structures of matrix mechanics and of wave mechanics were stretched, parts were chopped off and novel structures were added. To Procrustean places we go, where we can demonstrate the mathematical, empirical and ontological equivalence of ‘the final versions of’ matrix mechanics and wave mechanics. -/- The present paper claims to be a comprehensive analysis of one of the pivotal papers in the history of quantum mechanics: Schrödingers equivalence paper. Since the analysis is performed from the perspective of Suppes structural view (‘semantic view’) of physical theories, the present paper can be regarded not only as a morsel of the internal history of quantum mechanics, but also as a morsel of applied philosophy of science. The paper is self-contained and presupposes only basic knowledge of quantum mechanics. For reasons of length, the paper is published in two parts; Part I appeared in the previous issue of this journal. Section 1 contains, besides an introduction, also the papers five claims and a preview of the arguments supporting these claims; so Part I, Section 1 may serve as a summary of the paper for those readers who are not interested in the detailed arguments. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to offer the first systematic exploration and definition of equivalent causal models in the context where both models are not made up of the same variables. The idea is that two models are equivalent when they agree on all "essential" causal information that can be expressed using their common variables. I do so by focussing on the two main features of causal models, namely their structural relations and their functional relations. In particular, I define (...) several relations of causal ancestry and several relations of causal sufficiency, and require that the most general of these relations are preserved across equivalent models. (shrink)

To explain why, in scientific problem solving, a diagram can be “worth ten thousand words,” Jill Larkin and Herbert Simon (1987) relied on a computer model: two representations can be “informationally” equivalent but differ “computationally,” just as the same data can be encoded in a computer in multiple ways, more or less suited to different kinds of processing. The roots of this proposal lay in cognitive psychology, more precisely in the “imagery debate” of the 1970s on whether there are image-like (...) mental representations. Simon (1972, 1978) hoped to solve this debate by thoroughly reducing the differences between forms of mental representations (e.g., between images and sentences) to differences in computational efficiency; to carry out this reduction, he borrowed from computer science the concepts of data type and of data structure. I argue that, in the end, his account amounted to nothing more than characterizing representations by the fast operations on them. This analysis then allows me to assess what Simon’s approach actually achieves when transported from psychology to the study of scientific representations, as in Larkin and Simon (1987): it allows comparing, not representations in and of themselves, but rather the computational roles they play in particular problem-solving processes—that is, representations together with a particular way of using them. (shrink)

The desirability relation was introduced by Isbell to qualitatively compare the a priori influence of voters in a simple game. In this paper, we extend this desirability relation to simple games with coalition structure. In these games, players organize themselves into a priori disjoint coalitions. It appears that the desirability relation defined in this paper is a complete preorder in the class of swap-robust games. We also compare our desirability relation with the preorders induced by the generalizations to games (...) with coalition structure of the Shapley–Shubik and Banzhaf–Coleman power indices Values of games with a priori unions, 1977; Owen, Power, voting and voting power. In: Holler MJ Modification of the Banzhaf–Coleman index for games with a priori unions, 1981). It happens that in general they are different even if one considers the subclass of weighed voting games. However, if structural coalitions have equal size then both Owen–Banzhaf and the desirability preordering coincide. (shrink)

In the literature over the Ramsey-sentence approach to structural realism, there is often debate over whether structural realists can legitimately restrict the range of the second-order quantifiers, in order to avoid the Newman problem. In this paper, I argue that even if they are allowed to, it won’t help: even if the Ramsey sentence is interpreted using such restricted quantifiers, it is still an implausible candidate to capture a theory’s structural content. To do so, I use the following observation: if (...) a Ramsey sentence did encode a theory’s structural content, then two theories would be structurally equivalent just in case they have logically equivalent Ramsey sentences. I then argue that this criterion for structural equivalence is implausible, even where frame or Henkin semantics are used. (shrink)

In this essay I begin to lay out a conceptual scheme for: analysing dualities as cases of theoretical equivalence; assessing when cases of theoretical equivalence are also cases of physical equivalence. The scheme is applied to gauge/gravity dualities. I expound what I argue to be their contribution to questions about: the nature of spacetime in quantum gravity; broader philosophical and physical discussions of spacetime. - proceed by analysing duality through four contrasts. A duality will be a suitable (...) isomorphism between models: and the four relevant contrasts are as follows: Bare theory: a triple of states, quantities, and dynamics endowed with appropriate structures and symmetries; vs. interpreted theory: which is endowed with, in addition, a suitable pair of interpretative maps. Extendable vs. unextendable theories: which can, respectively cannot, be extended as regards their domains of application. External vs. internal intepretations: which are constructed, respectively, by coupling the theory to another interpreted theory vs. from within the theory itself. Theoretical vs. physical equivalence: which contrasts formal equivalence with the equivalence of fully interpreted theories. I will apply this scheme to answering questions - for gauge/gravity dualities. I will argue that the things that are physically relevant are those that stand in a bijective correspondence under duality: the common core of the two models. I therefore conclude that most of the mathematical and physical structures that we are familiar with, in these models, are largely, though crucially never entirely, not part of that common core. Thus, the interpretation of dualities for theories of quantum gravity compels us to rethink the roles that spacetime, and many other tools in theoretical physics, play in theories of spacetime. (shrink)

Computably enumerable equivalence relations received a lot of attention in the literature. The standard tool to classify ceers is provided by the computable reducibility \. This gives rise to a rich degree structure. In this paper, we lift the study of c-degrees to the \ case. In doing so, we rely on the Ershov hierarchy. For any notation a for a non-zero computable ordinal, we prove several algebraic properties of the degree structure induced by \ on the (...) \ equivalence relations. A special focus of our work is on the existence of infima and suprema of c-degrees. (shrink)

In his ontological works Kurt Grelling tries to give a rigorous analysis of the foundations of the so-called Gestalt-psychology. Gestalten are peculiar emergent qualities, ontologically dependent on their foundations, but nonetheless non reducible to them. Grelling shows that this concept, as used in psychology and ontology, is often ambiguous. He distinguishes two important meanings in which the word “Gestalt” is used: Gestalten as structural aspects available to transposition and Gestalten as causally self-regulating wholes. Gestalten in the first meaning are, according (...) to Grelling, “equivalence classes of correspondences”, while Gestalten as self-regulating wholes have more to do with relations of ontological dependence. Grelling’s clarification of the concept of Gestalt is doubtless an excellent piece of philosophical analysis, but at the end of the day it turns out that his analysis captures at best only a part of intuitions traditionally connected with the notion of Gestalt. (shrink)

A classic result in the foundations of Yang-Mills theory, due to J. W. Barrett ["Holonomy and Path Structures in General Relativity and Yang-Mills Theory." Int. J. Th. Phys. 30, ], establishes that given a "generalized" holonomy map from the space of piece-wise smooth, closed curves based at some point of a manifold to a Lie group, there exists a principal bundle with that group as structure group and a principal connection on that bundle such that the holonomy map corresponds (...) to the holonomies of that connection. Barrett also provided one sense in which this "recovery theorem" yields a unique bundle, up to isomorphism. Here we show that something stronger is true: with an appropriate definition of isomorphism between generalized holonomy maps, there is an equivalence of categories between the category whose objects are generalized holonomy maps on a smooth, connected manifold and whose arrows are holonomy isomorphisms, and the category whose objects are principal connections on principal bundles over a smooth, connected manifold. This result clarifies, and somewhat improves upon, the sense of "unique recovery" in Barrett's theorems; it also makes precise a sense in which there is no loss of structure involved in moving from a principal bundle formulation of Yang-Mills theory to a holonomy, or "loop", formulation. (shrink)

Louveau and Rosendal [5] have shown that the relation of bi-embeddability for countable graphs as well as for many other natural classes of countable structures is complete under Borel reducibility for analytic equivalence relations. This is in strong contrast to the case of the isomorphism relation, which as an equivalence relation on graphs is far from complete.In this article we strengthen the results of [5] by showing that not only does bi-embeddability give rise to analytic equivalence relations (...) which are complete under Borel reducibility, but in fact any analytic equivalence relation is Borel equivalent to such a relation. This result and the techniques introduced answer questions raised in [5] about the comparison between isomorphism and bi-embeddability. Finally, as in [5] our results apply not only to classes of countable structures defined by sentences of ℒω1ω, but also to discrete metric or ultrametric Polish spaces, compact metrizable topological spaces and separable Banach spaces, with various notions of embeddability appropriate for these classes, as well as to actions of Polish monoids. (shrink)

We characterize elementary equivalences and inclusions between von Neumann regular real closed rings in terms of their boolean algebras of idempotents, and prove that their theories are always decidable. We then show that, under some hypotheses, the map sending an L-structure R to the L-structure of definable functions from R n to R preserves elementary inclusions and equivalences and gives a structure with a decidable theory whenever R is decidable. We briefly consider structures of definable functions satisfying (...) an extra condition such as continuity. (shrink)