We examine a number of results of infinite combinatorics using the techniques of reverse mathematics. Our results are inspired by similar results in recursive combinatorics. Theorems included concern colorings of graphs and bounded graphs, Euler paths, and Hamilton paths.

We prove that the set of all recursive functions cannot be inferred using first-order queries in the query language containing extra symbols $\lbrack +, . The proof of this theorem involves a new decidability result about Presburger arithmetic which is of independent interest. Using our machinery, we show that the set of all primitive recursive functions cannot be inferred with a bounded number of mind changes, again using queries in $\lbrack +, . Additionally, we resolve an open question in [7] (...) about passive versus active learning. (shrink)

We prove that the set of all recursive functions cannot be inferred using first-order queries in the query language containing extra symbols $\lbrack +, < \rbrack$. The proof of this theorem involves a new decidability result about Presburger arithmetic which is of independent interest. Using our machinery, we show that the set of all primitive recursive functions cannot be inferred with a bounded number of mind changes, again using queries in $\lbrack +, < \rbrack$. Additionally, we resolve an open question (...) in [7] about passive versus active learning. (shrink)

We prove a number of structural theorems about the honest polynomial m-degrees contingent on the assumption P = NP . In particular, we show that if P = NP , then the topped finite initial segments of Hm are exactly the topped finite distributive lattices, the topped initial segments of Hm are exactly the direct limits of ascending sequences of finite distributive lattices, and all recursively presentable distributive lattices are initial segments of Hm ∩ RE. Additionally, assuming ¦∑¦ = 1, (...) we show that the theory of the hpm-degrees is undecidable. We also show that index sets cannot be minimal. Lastly, we examine an alternative definition of honest m-reduction under which recursive minimal sets can be constructed. (shrink)

If and the function is partial recursive, it is easily seen that A is recursive. In this paper, we weaken this hypothesis in various ways (and similarly for ``min'' in place of ``max'') and investigate what effect this has on the complexity of A. We discover a sharp contrast between retraceable and co-retraceable sets, and we characterize sets which are the union of a recursive set and a co-r.e., retraceable set. Most of our proofs are noneffective. Several open questions are (...) raised. (shrink)

In prior papers the following question was considered: which classes of computable sets can be learned if queries about those sets can be asked by the learner? The answer depended on the query language chosen. In this paper we develop a framework for studying this question. Essentially, once we have a result for queries to [S,<]2, we can obtain the same result for many different languages. We obtain easier proofs of old results and several new results. An earlier result we (...) have an easier proof of: the set of computable sets cannot be learned with queries to the language [+,<] . A new result: the set of computable sets cannot be learned with queries to the language [+,<,POWa] where POWa is the predicate that tests if a number is a power of a. (shrink)

Erdős proved that for every infinite \ there is \ with \, such that all pairs of points from Y have distinct distances, and he gave partial results for general a-ary volume. In this paper, we search for the strongest possible canonization results for a-ary volume, making use of general model-theoretic machinery. The main difficulty is for singular cardinals; to handle this case we prove the following. Suppose T is a stable theory, \ is a finite set of formulas of (...) T, \, and X is an infinite subset of M. Then there is \ with \ and an equivalence relation E on Y with infinitely many classes, each class infinite, such that Y is \\)-indiscernible. We also consider the definable version of these problems, for example we assume \ is perfect and we find some perfect \ with all distances distinct. Finally we show that Erdős’s theorem requires some use of the axiom of choice. (shrink)

A recursive graph is a graph whose vertex and edge sets are recursive. A highly recursive graph is a recursive graph that also has the following property: one can recursively determine the neighbors of a vertex. Both of these have been studied in the literature. We consider an intermediary notion: Let A be a set. An A-recursive graph is a recursive graph that also has the following property: one can recursively-in-A determine the neighbors of a vertex. We show that, if (...) A is r.e. and not recursive, then there exists A-recursive graphs that are 2-colorable but not recursively k-colorable for any k. This is false for highly-recursive graphs but true for recursive graphs. Hence A-recursive graphs are closer in spirit to recursive graphs than to highly recursive graphs. (shrink)

Most theories of learning consider inferring a function f from either observations about f or, questions about f. We consider a scenario whereby the learner observes f and asks queries to some set A. If I is a notion of learning then I[A] is the set of concept classes I-learnable by an inductive inference machine with oracle A. A and B are I-equivalent if I[A] = I[B]. The equivalence classes induced are the degrees of inferability. We prove several results about (...) when these degrees are trivial, and when the degrees are omniscient. (shrink)

LetA be any nonrecursive set. We define a hierarchy of sets (and a corresponding hierarchy of degrees) that are reducible toA based on bounding the number of queries toA that an oracle machine can make. WhenA is the halting problemK our hierarchy of sets interleaves with the difference hierarchy on the r.e. sets in a logarithmic way; this follows from a tradeoff between the number of parallel queries and the number of serial queries needed to compute a function with oracleK.

Higman essentially showed that if A is any language then SUBSEQ(A) is regular, where SUBSEQ(A) is the language of all subsequences of strings in A. Let s1, s2, s3, . . . be the standard lexicographic enumeration of all strings over some finite alphabet. We consider the following inductive inference problem: given A(s1), A(s2), A(s3), . . . . learn, in the limit, a DFA for SUBSEQU). We consider this model of learning and the variants of it that are usually (...) studied in Inductive Inference: anomalies, mind-changes, teams, and combinations thereof. This paper is a significant revision and expansion of an earlier conference version [10]. (shrink)

For a fixed set A, the number of queries to A needed in order to decide a set S is a measure of S's complexity. We consider the complexity of certain sets defined in terms of A: $ODD^A_n = \{(x_1, \dots ,x_n): {\tt\#}^A_n(x_1, \dots, x_n) \text{is odd}\}$ and, for m ≥ 2, $\text{MOD}m^A_n = \{(x_1, \dots ,x_n):{\tt\#}^A_n(x_1, \dots ,x_n) \not\equiv 0 (\text{mod} m)\},$ where ${\tt\#}^A_n(x_1, \dots ,x_n) = A(x_1)+\cdots+A(x_n)$ . (We identify A(x) with χ A (x), where χ A is (...) the characteristic function of A.) If A is a nonrecursive semirecursive set or if A is a jump, we give tight bounds on the number of queries needed in order to decide ODD A n and $\text{MOD}m^A_n: \bullet\text{ODD}^A_n$ can be decided with n parallel queries to A, but not with n - 1. $\bullet \text{ODD}^A_n$ can be decided with $\lceil log(n + 1)\rceil$ sequential queries to A but not with $\lceil log(n + 1)\rceil - 1. \bullet\text{MOD}m^A_n$ can be decided with $\lceil n/m\rceil + \lfloor n/m\rfloor$ parallel queries to A but not with $\lceil n/m\rceil + \lfloor n/m\rfloor - 1. \bullet\text{MOD}m^A_n$ can be decided with $\lceil log(\lceil n/m\rceil + \lfloor n/m\rfloor + 1)\rceil$ sequential queries to A but not with $\lceil log(\lceil n/m\rceil + \lfloor n/m\rfloor + 1)\rceil - 1$ . The lower bounds above hold for nonrecursive recursively enumerable sets A as well. (Interestingly, the lower bounds for recursively enumerable sets follow by a general result from the lower bounds for semirecursive sets.) In particular, every nonzero truth-table degree contains a set A such that ODD A n cannot be decided with n - 1 parallel queries to A. Since every truth-table degree also contains a set B such that ODD B n can be decided with one query to B, a set's query complexity depends more on its structure than on its degree. For a fixed set A, $Q(n,A) = \{S: S \text{can be decided with n sequential queries to} A\},\\Q_\parallel(n, A) = \{S: S \text{can be decided with n parallel queries to} A\}.$ We show that if A is semirecursive or recursively enumerable, but is not recursive, then these classes form non-collapsing hierarchies: $\bullet Q(0,A) \subset Q(1,A) \subset Q(2,A) \subset\cdots\\ \bullet Q_\parallel(0, A) \subset Q_\parallel(1, A) \subset Q_\parallel(2,A) \subset\cdots$ The same is true if A is a jump. (shrink)

A complete translation of Aristotle's classic that is both faithful and readable, along with an introduction that provides the modern reader with a means of understanding this seminal work and its impact on our culture. In this volume, Joe Sachs (translator of Aristotle's _Physics, Metaphysics,_ and the _Nicomachean Ethics _)also supplements his excellent translation with well-chosen notes and glossary of important terms. Focus Philosophical Library translations are close to and are non-interpretative of the original text, with the notes and a (...) glossary intending to provide the reader with some sense of the terms and the concepts as they were understood by Aristotle’s immediate audience. (shrink)

Nudging works through dispositions to decide with specific heuristics, and has three component parts. A nudge is a feature of an environment that enables such a disposition; a person is nudged when such a disposition is triggered; and a person performs a nudged action when such a disposition manifests in action. This analysis clarifies an autonomy-based worry about nudging as used in public policy or for private profit: that a person’s ability to reason well is undermined when she is nudged. (...) Reasoning well is a component of self-guidance, which is an aspect of autonomy and so something there is reason to promote, preserve, or respect. However, a person can reason well when she is nudged: Many of these heuristics are good rules to reason with, and she can be flexible with respect to them when she takes there to be a better way to reason. Along the way, this paper uncovers several design specifications for responsible nudging, and discusses open empirical questions. However, nudging’s being compatible with reasoning well crystallizes a distinct worry about manipulation: that nudge designers can rely on nudged people guiding themselves toward the designers’ own ends. Manipulation of this sort exploits one aspect of autonomy (namely, self-guidance) to undermine autonomy in other respects. (shrink)

_Selections_ seeks to provide an accurate and readable translation that will allow the reader to follow Aristotle's use of crucial technical terms and to grasp the details of his argument. Unlike anthologies that combine translations by many hands, this volume includes a fully integrated set of translations by a two-person team. The glossary--the most detailed in any edition--explains Aristotle's vocabulary and indicates the correspondences between Greek and English words. Brief notes supply alternative translations and elucidate difficult passages.

Appearing in English for the first time, Schelling’s 1842 lectures develop the idea that many philosophical concepts are born of religious-mythological notions.

There are two alternative approaches to accommodating an agent-centered restriction against, say, φ-ing. One approach is to prohibit agents from ever φ-ing. For instance, there could be an absolute prohibition against breaking a promise. The other approach is to require agents both to adopt an end that can be achieved only by their not φ-ing and to give this end priority over that of minimizing overall instances of φ-ing. For instance, each agent could be required both to adopt the end (...) of minimizing their own promise-breakings and to give this end priority over that of minimizing promise-breakings overall. The former is what I’ll call the side-constraint approach, and the latter is what I’ll call the teleological approach. In this chapter, I argue that, when it comes to accommodating restrictions, we should (1) favor the teleological approach over the side-constraint approach, (2) favor an act-consequentialist approach over a non-consequentialist, teleological approach (such as Rossian pluralism), and (3) favor a Kantsequentialist approach over other act-consequentialist approaches, where Kantsequentialism is a version of act-consequentialism that holds that persons are ends-in-themselves who are inherently and unconditionally valuable and are, thus, owed our respect. (shrink)

We must, therefore, make a study of mechanism; but some introduction is advisable, for cybernetics treats the subject from a new, and therefore unusual, ...

Is it ethical to treat a death row inmate only to stabilize him or her for eventual execution? What happens when a military provider receives highly sensitive intelligence from a client?

Through clear explanation of its characteristic concepts and doctrines, and paying close attention to the published works of its philosophers, the volume ...