We investigate strong versions of enumeration reducibility, the most important one being s-reducibility. We prove that every countable distributive lattice is embeddable into the local structure $L(\mathfrak D_s)$ of the s-degrees. However, $L(\mathfrak D_s)$ is not distributive. We show that on $\Delta^{0}_{2}$ sets s-reducibility coincides with its finite branch version; the same holds of e-reducibility. We prove some density results for $L(\mathfrak D_s)$ . In particular $L(\mathfrak D_s)$ is upwards dense. Among the results about reducibilities that are stronger than s-reducibility, (...) we show that the structure of the $\Delta^{0}_{2}$ bs-degrees is dense. Many of these results on s-reducibility yield interesting corollaries for Q-reducibility as well. (shrink)

Let A be an infinite Δ₂⁰ set and let K be creative: we show that K≤Q A if and only if K≤Q₁ A. (Here ≤Q denotes Q-reducibility, and ≤Q₁ is the subreducibility of ≤Q obtained by requesting that Q-reducibility be provided by a computable function f such that Wf(x)∩ Wf(y)=∅, if x \not= y.) Using this result we prove that A is hyperhyperimmune if and only if no Δ⁰₂ subset B of A is s-complete, i.e., there is no Δ⁰₂ subset (...) B of A such that \overline{K}≤s B, where ≤s denotes s-reducibility, and \overline{K} denotes the complement of K. (shrink)

We show that if M is an r‐maximal set, A is a major subset of M, B is an arbitrary set and, then. We prove that the c.e. ‐degrees are not dense. We also show that there exist infinite collections of ‐degrees and such that the following hold: (i) for every i, j,, and,(ii) each consists entirely of r‐maximal sets, and(iii) each consists entirely of non‐r‐maximal hyperhypersimple sets.

We show that the _sQ_-degree of a hypersimple set includes an infinite collection of \(sQ_1\) -degrees linearly ordered under \(\le _{sQ_1}\) with order type of the integers and each c.e. set in these _sQ_-degrees is a hypersimple set. Also, we prove that there exist two c.e. sets having no least upper bound on the \(sQ_1\) -reducibility ordering. We show that the c.e. \(sQ_1\) -degrees are not dense and if _a_ is a c.e. \(sQ_1\) -degree such that \(o_{sQ_1}, then there exist (...) infinitely many pairwise _sQ_-incomputable c.e. _sQ_-degrees \(\{c_i\}_{i\in \omega }\) such that \((\forall \,i)\;(a. (shrink)

We use certain strong Q-reducibilities, and their corresponding strong positive reducibilities, to characterize the hyperimmune sets and the hyperhyperimmune sets: if A is any infinite set then A is hyperimmune (respectively, hyperhyperimmune) if and only if for every infinite subset B of A, one has \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overline{K}\not\le_{\rm ss} B}$$\end{document} (respectively, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overline{K}\not\le_{\overline{\rm s}} B}$$\end{document}): here \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\le_{\overline{\rm (...) s}}}$$\end{document} is the finite-branch version of s-reducibility, ≤ss is the computably bounded version of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\le_{\overline{\rm s}}}$$\end{document}, and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overline{K}}$$\end{document} is the complement of the halting set. Restriction to \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Sigma^0_2}$$\end{document} sets provides a similar characterization of the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Sigma^0_2}$$\end{document} hyperhyperimmune sets in terms of s-reducibility. We also show that no \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A \geq_{\overline{\rm s}}\overline{K}}$$\end{document} is hyperhyperimmune. As a consequence, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\deg_{\rm s}(\overline{K})}$$\end{document} is hyperhyperimmune-free, showing that the hyperhyperimmune s-degrees are not upwards closed. (shrink)

We show that the Q-degree of a hyperhypersimple set includes an infinite collection of Q1-degrees linearly ordered under \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\leq_{Q_1}}$$\end{document} with order type of the integers and consisting entirely of hyperhypersimple sets. Also, we prove that the c.e. Q1-degrees are not an upper semilattice. The main result of this paper is that the Q1-degree of a hemimaximal set contains only one c.e. 1-degree. Analogous results are valid for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} (...) \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Pi_1^0}$$\end{document}s1-degrees. (shrink)

We show that the c.e. Q1,N\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${Q_{1,N}}$$\end{document}-degrees are not an upper semilattice. We prove that if M is an r-maximal set, A is an arbitrary set and M≡Q1,NA\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M \equiv{}_ {Q_{1,N}}A}$$\end{document}, then M≤mA\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M\leq{}_{m} A}$$\end{document}. Also, if M1 and M2 are r-maximal sets, A and B are major subsets of M1 and M2, respectively, and M1\A≡Q1,NM2\B\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} (...) \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M_{1}{\setminus} A\equiv{}_{Q_{1,N}}M_{2}{\setminus} B}$$\end{document}, then M1\A≡mM2\B\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M_{1}{\setminus}A\equiv{}_{m}M_{2}{\setminus} B}$$\end{document}. If M1 and M2 are r-maximal sets and M10,M11\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M_{1}^{0},\,M_{1}^{1}}$$\end{document} and M20,M21\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M_{2}^{0},\,M_{2}^{1}}$$\end{document} are nontrivial splittings of M1 and M2, respectively, then M10≡Q1,NM20\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M_{1}^{0} \equiv{}_{Q_{1,N}}M_{2}^{0}}$$\end{document} if and only if M10≡1M20\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${M_{1}^{0} \equiv{}_{1}M_{2}^{0}}$$\end{document}. From this result follows that if A and B are Friedberg splitting of an r-maximal set, then the Q1,N\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${Q_{1,N}}$$\end{document}-degree of A contains only one c.e. 1-degree. (shrink)

We prove that if $A$, $B$ are noncomputable c.e. sets, $A<_{sQ_{1}}B$ and [($B$ is not simple and $A\oplus B\leq _{sQ_{1}}B$) or $B\equiv _{sQ_{1}}B\times \omega $], then there exist infinitely many pairwise $sQ_{1}$-incomparable c.e. sets $\{C_{i}\}_{i\in \omega }$ such that $A<_{sQ_{1}}C_{i}<_{sQ_{1}}B$, for all $i\in \omega $. We also show that there exist infinite collections of $sQ_{1}$-degrees $\{\boldsymbol {a_{i}}\}_{i\in \omega }$ and $\{\boldsymbol {b_{i}}\}_{i\in \omega }$ such that for every $i, j,$ (1) $\boldsymbol {a_{i}}<_{sQ_{1}}\boldsymbol {a_{i+1}}$, $\boldsymbol {b_{j+1}}<_{sQ_{1}}\boldsymbol {b_{j}}$ and $\boldsymbol {a_{i}}<_{sQ_{1}}\boldsymbol {b_{j}}$; (...) (2) every c.e set in $\boldsymbol {a_{i}}$ is a maximal set; and (3) every c.e. set in $\boldsymbol {b_{j}}$ is a non-maximal hyperhypersimple set. We prove that a noncomputable c.e. $sQ$-degree contains either only one or infinitely many c.e. $sQ_{1}$-degrees. The $sQ_{1}$-degrees of c.e. cylinders are dense upper semilattice. (shrink)

We show: for every noncomputable c.e. incomplete c-degree, there exists a nonspeedable c-degree incomparable with it; The c-degree of a hypersimple set includes an infinite collection of \-degrees linearly ordered under \ with order type of the integers and consisting entirely of hypersimple sets; there exist two c.e. sets having no c.e. least upper bound in the \-reducibility ordering; the c.e. \-degrees are not dense.

We prove that a computably enumerable set A is effectively speedable (effectively levelable) if and only if there exists a splitting (A₀,A₁) of A such that both A₀ and A₁ are effectively speedable (effectively levelable). These results answer two questions raised by J. B. Remmel.

In this paper we study structural properties of n-c. e. Q-degrees. Two theorems contain results on the distribution of incomparable Q-degrees. In another theorem we prove that every incomplete Q-degree forms a minimal pair in the c. e. degrees with a Q-degree. In a further theorem it is proved that there exists a c. e. Q-degree that is not half of a minimal pair in the c. e. Q-degrees.

Nothing seems more possible to me than that people some day will come to the definite opinion that there is no copy in the… nervous system which corresponds to a particular thought, or a particular idea, or, memory.WittgensteinIn a recent essay it was emphasized that brain and mind appear to the mind as complementary and reciprocally recursive domains of a hermeneutic circle (Fischer, 1987). An outstanding and not yet recognized feature of this hermeneutic circle is that interpretation within this circle (...) is not rule-governed and hence appears self-organized: individual features of the world (or the brain) become intelligible in terms of the whole context (of the mind)… while the entire context becomes intelligible through individual features (or brain functions). How, or from where then is significance arising? (shrink)

Die Frühschriften Nietzsches bilden eine deutlich abgrenzbare Abteilung des Gesamtwerks. Den Bruch im Fortgang zu den aphoristischen Hauptwerken (Menschliches, Allzumenschliches usf.) zu erklären beansprucht die vorliegende Arbeit. Mit Hilfe von Methoden der Analytischen Philosophie rekonstruiert sie ein utopisches Argument, dessen notwendiges Scheitern sie als erklärende Hypothese entwickelt und propagiert.

Faults; religious aspects; Islam; Islamic daʻwah.

“Real prophecy is always “if... then...” If you commit adultery with your neighbor's wife, then you will roast in hell. But if you love God with all your heart, then you can create the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.”According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology the meanings of ‘divine’ are ‘pertaining to God, godlike, soothsayer and seer’ while ‘to divine’ (after the Latin divinare) is to ‘foretell, predict or make out as by supernatural insight’.

Drawing on mostly ignored texts, this book thoroughly reassesses Marx and Engels's engagement with theology.

L'interrogation du phénomène esthétique est contemporaine de l'autonomisation de l'art au cours des Temps modernes et de la relativisation de sa fonction lorsqu'il n'est plus que le moyen d'exprimer la vie émotionnelle subjective. En revanche, lorsque la singularité même de l'œuvre d'art se voit mise en question au XXe siècle, ce sont les frontières séparant l'art du non-art qui deviennent évanescentes. C'est sur le fond de cet évènement que s'est déployée la réflexion de Roland Quilliot, que les contributions de (...) ce recueil se proposent de poursuivre. Celles-ci reviennent sur la notion d'image puis sur la manière dont elle se déploie du côté de la littérature comme des arts plastiques y compris du cinéma. Le second temps du recueil s'inscrit, lui, dans le cadre d'une réflexion relative à la crise de l'art moderne, en suggérant aussi que le phénomène esthétique demande à être considéré dans un cadre moral et anthropologique bien plus englobant. (shrink)

Brain functions are stochastic processes without intentionality whereas mind emerges from brain functions as a Hegelian “change from quantity”, that is, on the order of 1012 profusely interconnected neurons, “into a new quality”: the collective phenomenon of the brain's self-experience. This self-referential and self-observing quality we have in mind is capable of (recursively) observing its self-observations, i.e., interpreting change that is meaningful in relation to itself. The notion of self-interpretation embodies the idea of a “hermeneutic circle”, that is, (in interpretation (...) theory) the treatment of the whole in relation to its parts. (shrink)