We show that a form of dependence known as G-dependence admits a very natural finite axiomatization, as well as Armstrong relations. We also give an explicit translation between functional dependence and G-dependence.

In this paper, we introduce a logic based on team semantics, called $\mathbf {FOT} $, whose expressive power is elementary, i.e., coincides with first-order logic both on the level of sentences and (possibly open) formulas, and we also show that a sublogic of $\mathbf {FOT} $, called $\mathbf {FOT}^{\downarrow } $, captures exactly downward closed elementary (or first-order) team properties. We axiomatize completely the logic $\mathbf {FOT} $, and also extend the known partial axiomatization of dependence logic to dependence logic (...) enriched with the logical constants in $\mathbf {FOT}^{\downarrow } $. (shrink)

We prove that the form of conditional independence at play in database theory and independence logic is reducible to the first-order dividing calculus in the theory of atomless Boolean algebras. This establishes interesting connections between independence in database theory and stochastic independence. As indeed, in light of the aforementioned reduction and recent work of Ben-Yaacov :957–1012, 2013), the former case of independence can be seen as the discrete version of the latter.

We use sets of assignments, a.k.a. teams, and measures on them to define probabilities of first-order formulas in given data. We then axiomatise first-order properties of such probabilities and prove a completeness theorem for our axiomatisation. We use the Hardy–Weinberg Principle of biology and the Bell’s Inequalities of quantum physics as examples.

Team semantics is a highly general framework for logics which describe dependencies and independencies among variables. Typically, the dependencies considered in this context are properties of sets of configurations or data records. We show how team semantics can be further generalized to support languages for the discussion of interventionist counterfactuals and causal dependencies, such as those that arise in manipulationist theories of causation. We show that the “causal teams” we introduce in the present paper can be used for modelling some (...) classical counterfactual scenarios which are not captured by the usual causal models. We then analyse the basic properties of our counterfactual languages and discuss extensively the differences with respect to the Lewisian tradition. (shrink)

We analyse the two definitions of generalized quantifiers for logics of dependence and independence that have been proposed by F. Engström, comparing them with a more general, higher order definition of team quantifier. We show that Engström’s definitions can be identified, by means of appropriate lifts, with special classes of team quantifiers. We point out that the new team quantifiers express a quantitative and a qualitative component, while Engström’s quantifiers only range over the latter. We further argue that Engström’s definitions (...) are just embeddings of the first-order generalized quantifiers into team semantics, and fail to capture an adequate notion of team-theoretical generalized quantifier, save for the special cases in which the quantifiers are applied to flat formulas. We also raise several doubts concerning the meaningfulness of the monotone/nonmonotone distinction in this context. In the appendix we develop some proof theory for Engström’s quantifiers. (shrink)