We introduce a natural generalization of Borel's Conjecture. For each infinite cardinal number $\kappa$, let ${\sf BC}_{\kappa}$ denote this generalization. Then ${\sf BC}_{\aleph_0}$ is equivalent to the classical Borel conjecture. Assuming the classical Borel conjecture, $\neg{\sf BC}_{\aleph_1}$ is equivalent to the existence of a Kurepa tree of height $\aleph_1$. Using the connection of ${\sf BC}_{\kappa}$ with a generalization of Kurepa's Hypothesis, we obtain the following consistency results: 1. If it is consistent that there is (...) a 1-inaccessible cardinal then it is consistent that ${\sf BC}_{\aleph_1}$.2. If it is consistent that ${\sf BC}_{\aleph_1}$, then it is consistent that there is an inaccessible cardinal.3. If it is consistent that there is a 1-inaccessible cardinal with $\omega$ inaccessible cardinals above it, then $\neg{\sf BC}_{\aleph_{\omega}} + (\forall n < \omega){\sf BC}_{\aleph_n}$ is consistent.4. If it is consistent that there is a 2-huge cardinal, then it is consistent that ${\sf BC}_{\aleph_{\omega}}$.5. If it is consistent that there is a 3-huge cardinal, then it is consistent that ${\sf BC}_{\kappa}$ for a proper class of cardinals $\kappa$ of countable cofinality. (shrink)

The "space" of Lascar strong types, on some sort and relative to a given complete theory T, is in general not a compact Hausdorff topological space. We have at least three aims in this paper. The first is to show that spaces of Lascar strong types, as well as other related spaces and objects such as the Lascar group Gal L of T, have well-defined Borel cardinalities. The second is to compute the Borel cardinalities of the known examples (...) as well as of some new examples that we give. The third is to explore notions of definable map, embedding, and isomorphism, between these and related quotient objects. We also make some conjectures, the main one being roughly "smooth if and only if trivial". The possibility of a descriptive set-theoretic account of the complexity of spaces of Lascar strong types was touched on in the paper [E. Casanovas, D. Lascar, A. Pillay and M. Ziegler, Galois groups of first order theories, J. Math. Logic1 305–319], where the first example of a "non-G-compact theory" was given. The motivation for writing this paper is partly the discovery of new examples via definable groups, in [A. Conversano and A. Pillay, Connected components of definable groups and o-minimality I, Adv. Math.231 605–623; Connected components of definable groups and o-minimality II, to appear in Ann. Pure Appl. Logic] and the generalizations in [J. Gismatullin and K. Krupiński, On model-theoretic connected components in some group extensions, preprint, arXiv:1201.5221v1]. (shrink)

Martin’s conjecture is an attempt to classify the behavior of all definable functions on the Turing degrees under strong set theoretic hypotheses. Very roughly it says that every such function is either eventually constant, eventually equal to the identity function or eventually equal to a transfinite iterate of the Turing jump. It is typically divided into two parts: the first part states that every function is either eventually constant or eventually above the identity function and the second part states (...) that every function which is above the identity is eventually equal to a transfinite iterate of the jump. If true, it would provide an explanation for the unique role of the Turing jump in computability theory and rule out many types of constructions on the Turing degrees.In this thesis, we will introduce a few tools which we use to prove several cases of Martin’s conjecture. It turns out that both these tools and these results on Martin’s conjecture have some interesting consequences both for Martin’s conjecture and for a few related topics.The main tool that we introduce is a basis theorem for perfect sets, improving a theorem due to Groszek and Slaman. We also introduce a general framework for proving certain special cases of Martin’s conjecture which unifies a few pre-existing proofs. We will use these tools to prove three main results about Martin’s conjecture: that it holds for regressive functions on the hyperarithmetic degrees, that part 1 holds for order preserving functions on the Turing degrees, and that part 1 holds for a class of functions that we introduce, called measure preserving functions.This last result has several interesting consequences for the study of Martin’s conjecture. In particular, it shows that part 1 of Martin’s conjecture is equivalent to a statement about the Rudin-Keisler order on ultrafilters on the Turing degrees. This suggests several possible strategies for working on part 1 of Martin’s conjecture, which we will discuss.The basis theorem that we use to prove these results also has some applications outside of Martin’s conjecture. We will use it to prove a few theorems related to Sacks’ question about whether it is provable in $\mathsf {ZFC}$ that every locally countable partial order of size continuum embeds into the Turing degrees. We will show that in a certain extension of $\mathsf {ZF}$, this holds for all partial orders of height two, but not for all partial orders of height three. Our proof also yields an analogous result for Borel partial orders and Borel embeddings in $\mathsf {ZF}$, which shows that the Borel version of Sacks’ question has a negative answer.We will end the thesis with a list of open questions related to Martin’s conjecture, which we hope will stimulate further research.prepared by Patrick Lutz.E-mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

We prove that $\operatorname{cons}(ZF)$ implies $\operatorname{cons}(ZF +$ Borel conjecture + there exists a Ramsey ultrafilter). We also prove some results on strong measure zero sets from the existence of generalized Luzin sets. We study the relationships between strong measure zero sets and rapid filters on ω.

We show the Borel Conjecture is consistent with the continuum large.

We investigate the notion of strong measure zero sets in the context of the higher Cantor space $2^\kappa $ for $\kappa $ at least inaccessible. Using an iteration of perfect tree forcings, we give two proofs of the relative consistency of $$\begin{align*}|2^\kappa| = \kappa^{++} + \forall X \subseteq 2^\kappa:\ X \textrm{ is strong measure zero if and only if } |X| \leq \kappa^+. \end{align*}$$ Furthermore, we also investigate the stronger notion of stationary strong measure zero and show that the equivalence (...) of the two notions is undecidable in ZFC. (shrink)

We construct a model of ZFC satisfying the Dual Borel Conjecture in which there is a set of size ℵ₁ that does not have measure zero.

Abstract.In this paper we prove that it is consistent that every γ-set is countable while not every strong measure zero set is countable. We also show that it is consistent that every strong γ-set is countable while not every γ-set is countable. On the other hand we show that every strong measure zero set is countable iff every set with the Rothberger property is countable.

We study the κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\kappa $$\end{document}-Borel-reducibility of isomorphism relations of complete first order theories in a countable language and show the consistency of the following: For all such theories T and T′\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$T^{\prime }$$\end{document}, if T is classifiable and T′\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$T^{\prime }$$\end{document} is not, then the isomorphism of models of T′\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} (...) \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$T^{\prime }$$\end{document} is strictly above the isomorphism of models of T with respect to κ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\kappa $$\end{document}-Borel-reducibility. In fact, we can also ensure that a range of equivalence relations modulo various non-stationary ideals are strictly between those isomorphism relations. The isomorphism relations are considered on models of some fixed uncountable cardinality obeying certain restrictions. (shrink)

In spite of these efforts in the 1920s and 1930s to initiate ongoing research on contraception, the subject of birth control remained a problem of concern primarily to the social activist rather than to the research scientist or practicing physician.80 In the 1930s, as has been shown, American scientists turned to the study of other aspects of reproductive physiology, while American physicians, anxious to eliminate the moral and medical dangers of contraception, only reluctantly accepted birth control as falling within their (...) professional domain.As a result, the problem of cheap, effective, and safe contraception was not solved by these earliest attempts. Consideration of the subject was initiated afresh by private philanthropy after World War II, sparked by a new wave of interest in population studies.81 Summarizing such efforts to support research in the reproductive sciences, a recent Ford Foundation study has noted: “To initiate and sustain serious research in the reproductive sciences has required for more than half a century concerted effort by interested individuals and private organizations, mainly from outside the mainstreams of the biomedical research community.”82The early laboratory research on chemical contraception described in this paper was but one important outcome of the concerted effort made by reformers in the 1920s to eliminate a variety of social problems thought to derive from excessive fertility. Scientific arguments and expertise were employed to advocate reform as well as to define the appropriate solution to such social problems. Scientists were recruited as advocates for the movement, but they were also employed as researchers in laboratory investigations sponsored by these same reformers.Sponsors of these early laboratory studies noted the difficulty of obtaining first-class investigators.83 The routine analyses necessary for such research, as well as the traditional scientific aversion to applied problems, provide only a partial explanation for this response. The real difficulty lay in recruiting investigators to a field that had previously been taboo. Once opened up — first as socially relevant, and finally as scientifically sound — there was much interest in this area, and the appeal to researchers of the scientific issues surrounding fertility and reproduction soon surpassed that of the reforming value of birth control.A survey of the kinds of experimental investigations sponsored by birth control advocates indicates the range of physiological problems explored by contraceptive research. The most definitive work was done on the efficacy and safety of spermicides, but the potential of other contraceptive methods was also examined. Investigators attempted to develop spermatoxins that would effectively immunize women against sperm, and they also tried to elucidate the mechanism of hormonal control of reproduction. In fact, speculations about the possible hormonal manipulation of fertility were expressed at the Seventh International Birth Control Conference held in Zurich in 1930.84In the 1920s, clinical studies were undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the various birth control methods. Laboratory investigators complemented this work by screening spermicides for safety and testing for their ability to kill sperm. There were a variety of birth control preparations on the market, but no one really knew whether these were effective or even safe.85 Although the physiology of other major organ systems was well advanced, the scientific study of reproductive physiology and contraceptive technology was clearly in its infancy in this period. Routine analyses simply could not be conducted, because the fundamental research establishing baselines had not yet been done. Scientists used this fact to redirect attention to basic research on reproduction.Laboratory research on contraception indicated important unexplored areas for physiological investigation. Social activists, who had encouraged prominent scientists to become interested in both the social value and the genetic implications of birth control, found these investigators revising the goals of their research. The biologists had formed their own network and had begun to seek out funding, reformulating the justification for sponsorship of further investigations. The eugenic motivations underlying these studies, which had initially made them theoretically attractive to biologists, were gradually eroded. Concern with “human evolution” ceded its place to interest in physiological mechanisms. Crew and others began to note that the use of biological theory to justify essentially political decisions had serious limitations. Biologists had become uncomfortable with those very arguments which had originally captured their interest. Recognition of the potential political abuse wrought by applying scientific principles to society was expressed by Crew just one year after the Zurich meeting. Referring to previous assessments of the role of sex in reproduction, he generalized: “In the past the biologist has justified feudalism, Manchester Liberalism, socialism and every other type of social organization and political programme by reference to selected biological phenomena.”86 By 1932 Crew had also begun to question the biological logic of regulated breeding, and had made it clear to his American sponsor that there was no simple correspondence between the practice of birth control and the genetic improvement of the human race.87Biologists further began to recognize, however, that although the hopeful genetic solution to human problems was probably an illusion, contraception still remained one tangible means to alleviate, human misery. Some laboratory scientists, like Crew, acknowledged the applicability of their own particular skills to this problem. For a few brief years, social needs and scientific goals were mutually supportive and closely intertwined. But as laboratory researchers gained interest in the study of reproduction and established their own priorities in this field, they temporarily withdrew from the arena of debate over birth control as an important mechanism for social reform.With the rise of Hitler, the genetic arguments for birth control rapidly lost their appeal. But by that time the scientific problem of how to achieve effective contraception had entered the professional consciousness. Both physicians and scientists began to be aware of birth control as a subject within their domain of expertise, although outside the principal focus of their research. Scientific discussion of birth control permanently altered from a question of justification to a problem of method: How could one achieve reliable and safe contraception? This had been Sanger's and Dickinson's goal from the beginning. Laboratory scientists had indeed been persuaded to undertake this work; this research had in turn affected biologists' perceptions of the whole field of reproductive physiology, encouraging further study of reproductive mechanisms. The promise of new knowledge provided for continued funding of this research, despite the caution by scientists that the social benefits would not be as immediate or as far-reaching as advocates and they themselves had first argued.The activities of birth control activists and their supporting agencies, and the financial backing of private contributors and foundations, notably the Rockefeller philanthropies, provided an important new stimulus to the development of research on the biology of reproduction in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Biologists were able to claim an enlarged realm of issues for scientific study through their activities as advocates and as investigators for the birth control movement. At the same time, they promised as-yet-undiscovered possibilities for regulating human reproduction once its physiology was understood. The knowledge and control that they promised lay in understanding the whole reproductive cycle — not merely in evaluating the toxic effects of presumptive spermicides.Chemical spermicides never summoned the interest of scientists as the contraceptive pill was to do, yet that research did reinforce the widespread perceptions of scientific research as essential to social reform. Spermicide investigations focused research efforts in reproductive biology by challenging traditional taboos, defining problems for further study, and providing laboratory investigators the opportunity to assert the social and scientific value of their own skills. Crew echoed this attitude as he observed in 1934:Man has turned from the adventurous conquest of his environment to the conquest of himself. To-day is the day of biological invention, eagerly used for the control of the undesirable and the unwanted. Sex and reproduction are no longer hedged around by myth and taboo; they are no longer accepted as mysteries that defy understanding. They are matters inviting examination and explanation; they are regarded as expressions of physico-chemical forces, the nature of which is to be displayed. It is accepted that when knowledge is sufficient, control will be absolute, and, though knowledge is not yet sufficient, readers... must be persuaded to the view that this will not always be so.88The synergism between reproductive biology and social needs has been temporary and sporadic, but recurring, since the 1920s. Scientific research programs have clearly been influenced by issues raised by public debate. Nevertheless, reproductive biologists have continued to assert their own professional goals. For the most part, they have rejected problems without inherent scientific interest and have spurned applied research except as it has had a direct bearing on current research themes. This attitude, apparent among American and British investigators in the 1930s, created the intellectual context for the invention and acceptance of the technically sophisticated oral contraceptive pill. It did not foster the production and improvement of the simple, safe, effective, and cheap vaginal contraceptive desired by early birth control advocates. (shrink)

We show that the model for the simultaneous consistency of the Borel Conjecture and the dual Borel Conjecture given in actually satisfies a stronger version of the dual Borel Conjecture: there are no uncountable very meager sets.

Résumé En 1975, la loi inscrit l’IVG dans la juridiction de la médecine, investie comme instrument du contrôle social dans la régulation des naissances. La demande d’IVG demeurait pensée comme phénomène relevant de la pathologie. Cependant, une normalisation de cette activité s’opère dans le système de soins avec l’évolution de l’encadrement réglementaire et des techniques de prise en charge. Notamment, les sages-femmes sont enrôlées dans le réagencement des formes de l’action publique en la matière. Leur champ de compétence est élargi. (...) Ces nouvelles définitions de l’expertise médicale en santé sexuelle et reproductive donnent lieu à des délibérations sur les conceptions de la pratique abortive. L’association nationale des sages-femmes orthogénistes (ANSFO) se saisit de cette opportunité pour renforcer la légitimité du groupe professionnel, en opérant un travail cognitif de « physiologisation » de l’IVG. (shrink)

Ever since Kant, the possibility of having objects of knowledge has been one of the most basic anthropological questions (“what can I know?”). For the logician, the linguist, or the semiologist who studies natural language, negation is one of these objects. However, as an operation and as a symbol, it has the paradoxical property of not being able to be objectivized in the discourse that treats it without being used in this construction. Of course, it is an entirely general problem (...) that it is not possible to have a “distant view” of symbolism without using a symbolism of some sort or another. Anthropology is essentially concerned with such objects. The descriptions of ethnologists are thus fertile ground for the epistemologist who believes, like Aristotle, that non-being is not and therefore that, even though in fact we speak only of things (otherwise, what good is speaking?) our discourse cannot be a copy of them. (shrink)

Hjorth introduced a Scott analysis for general Polish group actions, and asked whether his notion of rank satisfies a boundedness principle similar to the one of Scott rank—namely, if the orbit equivalence relation is Borel, then Hjorth ranks are bounded. We answer Hjorth’s question positively. As a corollary we prove the following conjecture of Hjorth—for every limit ordinal \, the set of elements whose orbit is of complexity less than \ is a Borel set.

We construct two Borel equivalence relations on the generalized Baire space κκ, κ ω, with the property that neither of them is Borel reducible to the other. A small modification of the construction shows that the straightforward generalization of the Glimm-Effros dichotomy fails.

We start by giving a survey to the theory of $${\text {Borel}}^{*}$$ sets in the generalized Baire space $${\text {Baire}}=\kappa ^{\kappa }$$. In particular we look at the relation of this complexity class to other complexity classes which we denote by $${\text {Borel}}$$, $${\Delta _1^1}$$ and $${\Sigma _1^1}$$ and the connections between $${\text {Borel}}^*$$ sets and the infinitely deep language $$M_{\kappa ^+\kappa }$$. In the end of the paper we will prove the consistency of $${\text { (...) class='Hi'>Borel}}^{*}\ne \Sigma ^{1}_{1}$$. (shrink)

The Boxdot Conjecture is shown to hold for a novel class of modal systems. Each system in this class is K plus an instance of a natural generalization of the McKinsey axiom. [Note from the editors: This paper was accepted for publication in 2011. It should have been published in 2014. The lateness of the appearance of the article is due entirely to an editorial oversight.].

During the Notre Dame workshop on Vaught's Conjecture, Hjorth and Kechris asked which Borel equivalence relations can arise as the isomorphism relation for countable models of a first-order theory. In particular, they asked if the isomorphism relation can be essentially countable but not tame. We show this is not possible if the theory has uncountably many types.

We start by giving a survey to the theory of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text {Borel}}^{*}$$\end{document} sets in the generalized Baire space \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text {Baire}}=\kappa ^{\kappa }$$\end{document}. In particular we look at the relation of this complexity class to other complexity classes which we denote by \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text {Borel}}$$\end{document}, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} (...) \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Delta _1^1}$$\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}$${\Sigma _1^1}$$\end{document} and the connections between \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text {Borel}}^*$$\end{document} sets and the infinitely deep language \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$M_{\kappa ^+\kappa }$$\end{document}. In the end of the paper we will prove the consistency of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text {Borel}}^{*}\ne \Sigma ^{1}_{1}$$\end{document}. (shrink)

We prove that there is no Borel connection for non-trivial pairs of unsplitting relations. This was conjectured in [3].

We prove that the forcing axiom [Formula: see text] (stratified) implies [Formula: see text]. Using this implication, we show that the forcing axiom [Formula: see text] is inconsistent. We also derive weak Chang’s Conjecture from [Formula: see text] (stratified) and use this second implication to give another proof of the inconsistency of [Formula: see text].

We introduce a reducibility preordering between classes of countable structures, each class containing only structures of a given similarity type (which is allowed to vary from class to class). Though we sometimes work in a slightly larger context, we are principally concerned with the case where each class is an invariant Borel class (i.e. the class of all models, with underlying set $= \omega$, of an $L_{\omega_1\omega}$ sentence; from this point of view, the reducibility can be thought of as (...) a (rather weak) sort of $L_{\omega_1\omega}$-interpretability notion). We prove a number of general results about this notion, but our main thrust is to situate various mathematically natural classes with respect to the preordering, most notably classes of algebraic structures such as groups and fields. (shrink)

The investigation of computational properties of discontinuous functions is an important concern in computable analysis. One method to deal with this subject is to consider effective variants of Borel measurable functions. We introduce such a notion of Borel computability for single-valued as well as for multi-valued functions by a direct effectivization of the classical definition. On Baire space the finite levels of the resulting hierarchy of functions can be characterized using a notion of reducibility for functions and corresponding (...) complete functions. We use this classification and an effective version of a Selection Theorem of Bhattacharya-Srivastava in order to prove a generalization of the Representation Theorem of Kreitz-Weihrauch for Borel measurable functions on computable metric spaces: such functions are Borel measurable on a certain finite level, if and only if they admit a realizer on Baire space of the same quality. This Representation Theorem enables us to introduce a realizer reducibility for functions on metric spaces and we can extend the completeness result to this reducibility. Besides being very useful by itself, this reducibility leads to a new and effective proof of the Banach-Hausdorff-Lebesgue Theorem which connects Borel measurable functions with the Baire functions. Hence, for certain metric spaces the class of Borel computable functions on a certain level is exactly the class of functions which can be expressed as a limit of a pointwise convergent and computable sequence of functions of the next lower level. (shrink)

In "A proof of Vaught's conjecture for ω-stable theories," the notions of ENI-NDOP and eni-depth have been introduced, which are variants of the notions of NDOP and depth known from Shelah's classification theory. First, we show that for an ω-stable first-order complete theory, ENI-NDOP allows tree decompositions of countable models. Then we discuss the relationship between eni-depth and the complexity of the isomorphism relation for countable models of such a theory in terms of Borel reducibility as introduced by (...) Friedman and Stanley and construct, in particular, a sequence of complete first-order ω-stable theories $(T_\alpha)_{\alpha < \omega_1}$ with increasing and cofinal eni-depth and isomorphism relations which are strictly increasing with respect to Borel reducibility. (shrink)

In 1907 Borel published a remarkable essay on the paradox of the Heap (“Un paradoxe économique: le sophisme du tas de blé et les vérités statistiques”), in which Borel proposes what is likely the first statistical account of vagueness ever written, and where he discusses the practical implications of the sorites paradox, including in economics. Borel’s paper was integrated in his book Le Hasard, published 1914, but has gone mostly unnoticed since its publication. One of the originalities (...) of Borel’s essay is that it puts forward a model of vagueness as imprecision, making particular use of the Gaussian law of measurement errors to model categorization. The aim of our paper is to give a presentation of the historical context of Borel’s essay, to spell out the mathematical details of his model, and to provide a critical assessment of his theory. Three aspects of Borel’s account are particularly discussed: the first concerns the comparison between Borel’s statistical account and posterior degree-theoretic accounts of vagueness. The second concerns the anti-epistemicist flavor of Borel’s approach, whereby the idea of statistical fluctuation is used to undermine the notion of sharp boundary for vague predicates. The third concerns the problematic link between Borel’s model of vagueness as imprecision and the notion of semantic indeterminacy. An English translation of Borel’s original essay is appended to this paper (Erkenntnis, this issue). (shrink)

We prove that if f is a partial Borel function from one Polish space to another, then either f can be decomposed into countably many partial continuous functions, or else f contains the countable infinite power of a bijection that maps a convergent sequence together with its limit onto a discrete space. This is a generalization of a dichotomy discovered by Solecki for Baire class 1 functions. As an application, we provide a characterization of functions which are countable unions (...) of continuous functions with domains of type Πn0, for a fixed n<ω. For Baire class 1 functions, this generalizes analogous characterizations proved by Jayne and Rogers for n=1 and Semmes for n=2. (shrink)

We analyze the degree-structure induced by large reducibilities under the Axiom of Determinacy. This generalizes the analysis of Borel reducibilities given in Alessandro Andretta and Donald A. Martin [1], Luca Motto Ros [6] and Luca Motto Ros. [5] e.g. to the projective levels.

We show that the enveloping space \ of a partial action of a Polish group G on a Polish space \ is a standard Borel space, that is to say, there is a topology \ on \ such that \\) is Polish and the quotient Borel structure on \ is equal to \\). To prove this result we show a generalization of a theorem of Burgess about Borel selectors for the orbit equivalence relation induced by a group (...) action and also show that some properties of the Vaught’s transform are valid for partial actions of groups. (shrink)

A conjectural inference is proposed, aimed at producing conjectural theorems from formal conjectures assumed as axioms, as well as admitting contradictory statements as conjectural theorems. To this end, we employ Paraconsistent Informational Logic, which provides a formal setting where the notion of conjecture formulated by an epistemic agent can be defined. The paraconsistent systems on which conjectural deduction is based are sequent formulations of the C-systems presented in Carnielli-Marcos [CAR 02b]. Thus, conjectural deduction may also be considered to be (...) a tool for investigating the properties of paraconsistency in general. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that, in at least two cases - his discussions of the temporal precedence o f polytheism over monotheism and of the origins of civil society - we see Hume consigning to historical development certain aspects of reason which, as a comparison with Locke will show, have sometimes been held to be uniform. In the first of these cases Hume has recourse to claims about the general historical development of human thought. In the second case, the (...) origin of the civil institution of justice and government is not linked directly to external circumstances and the principles of human nature, as it is in contractarian theories, but makes a detour through the historical acquisition of certain concepts. Because Hume's position does not conform in any simple sense to Dugald Stewart's 'incontrovertible logical maxim' that the capacities of the human mind have been the same in all ages, Stewart's account of the method of conjectural history is, in any simple sense, inadequate as a description of Hume's practice. (shrink)

In this paper, we explore some of the consequences of Martin’s Conjecture on degree invariant Borel maps. These include the strongest conceivable ergodicity result for the Turing equivalence relation with respect to the filter on the degrees generated by the cones, as well as the statement that the complexity of a weakly universal countable Borel equivalence relation always concentrates on a null set.

Louveau, A., S. Shelah and B. Velikovi, Borel partitions of infinite subtrees of a perfect tree, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 63 271–281. We define a notion of type of a perfect tree and show that, for any given type τ, if the set of all subtrees of a given perfect tree T which have type τ is partitioned into two Borel classes then there is a perfect subtree S of T such that all subtrees of S (...) of type τ belong to the same class. This result simultaneously generalizes the partition theorems of Galvin-Prikry and Galvin-Blass. The key ingredient of the proof is the theorem of Halpern-Laüchli on partitions of products of perfect trees. (shrink)

Darwin’s Conjecture is a bold attempt to bring evolutionary explanation to the social sciences, particularly economics. The book outlines the history of Darwinian explanation in social science then puts forward a generalized replicator account of social evolution by natural selection. The authors identify habits and routines as examples of the generative replicators necessary in order that social evolution is Darwinian. This reviewer notes that the replicator approach limits the generality of this account and suggests that habits and routines (...) might better be seen as members of a Darwinian population in the tradition of Godfrey-Smith’s (2009) generalized account of natural selection instead. Furthermore, the existence of levels of social evolution will constrain what evolution can occur low in the hierarchy. (shrink)

Ce commentaire intégral des Conjectures de Nicolas de Cues manifeste toute la fécondité de l'oeuvre dans sa complexité. Il élucide l'art général des conjectures, en explore et approfondit les sources doctrinales (en particulier lulliennes) et scientifiques : optiques, mathématiques, biologiques et médicales... Il montre ainsi que la théorie cusaine de la connaissance constitue une hénologie des points de vue et met en évidence l'articulation du rapport entre la vérité, objet de toute recherche connaissante, et l'altérité, condition de tout être fini, (...) et notamment de l'homme. La vérité dans l'altérité se révèle alors comme condition de possibilité de tout ce qui est à partir de l'Un - ce qui constitue l'ordre de l'être - et comme condition de possibilité de toute pensée. Il s'agit, dès lors, de saisir la singularité de l'approche cusaine de la réflexion réciproque entre l'ordre de la pensée et l'ordre de l'être. Après avoir analysé le concept central de conjecture, entendu non comme une simple supposition, mais bien comme une connaissance inadéquate du vrai, la première partie déploie les principes de la nouvelle méthode, fondée sur l'analogie fondamentale entre mens humaine et mens divine. La découverte de ces principes nécessite l'exposition d'une théorie du nombre articulée à celle, d'inspiration proclusienne, des quatre unités (divine, intellectuelle, rationnelle et sensible). Cette première partie conduit à la mise en place de figures manuductrices, paradigmatiques pour notre connaissance. La seconde partie du commentaire explicite les exemples d'application de l'ars coniecturalis donnés par le Cusain en mathématiques, en philosophie naturelle et en anthropologie. Le lecteur découvrira ici comment les Conjectures engagent une philosophie de l'esprit et une philosophie critique, fondamentalement liées à une pensée de l'hétéronomie. (shrink)

Given a graph G whose set of vertices is a Polish space X, the weak Borel chromatic number of G is the least size of a family of pairwise disjoint G -independent Borel sets that covers all of X. Here a set of vertices of a graph G is independent if no two vertices in the set are connected by an edge.We show that it is consistent with an arbitrarily large size of the continuum that every closed graph (...) on a Polish space either has a perfect clique or has a weak Borel chromatic number of at most ℵ1. We observe that some weak version of Todorcevic's Open Coloring Axiom for closed colorings follows from MA.Slightly weaker results hold for Fσ-graphs. In particular, it is consistent with an arbitrarily large size of the continuum that every locally countable Fσ-graph has a Borel chromatic number of at most ℵ1.We refute various reasonable generalizations of these results to hypergraphs. (shrink)

THE ART OF CAUSAL CONJECTURE Glenn Shafer Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................ ...........1 1.1. Probability Trees..........................................................................................3 1.2. Many Observers, Many Stances, Many Natures..........................................8 1.3. Causal Relations as Relations in Nature’s Tree...........................................9 1.4. Evidence............................................................................................ ...........13 1.5. Measuring the Average Effect of a Cause....................................................17 1.6. Causal Diagrams..........................................................................................20 1.7. Humean Events............................................................................................23 1.8. Three Levels of Causal Language................................................................27 1.9. An Outline of the Book................................................................................27 Chapter 2. Event Trees............................................................................................... .....31 2.1. Situations and Events...................................................................................32 2.2. The Ordering of Situations and Moivrean Events.......................................35 2.3. Cuts................................................................................................ ..............39 2.4. Humean Events............................................................................................43 (...) 2.5. Moivrean Variables......................................................................................49 2.6. Humean Variables........................................................................................53 2.7. Event Trees for Stochastic Processes...........................................................54 2.8. Timing in Event Trees.................................................................................56 2.9. Intersecting Event Trees...............................................................................60 2.10. Notes on the Literature...............................................................................61 Chapter 3. Probability Trees...........................................................................................63 3.1. Some Types of Probability Trees.................................................................64 ii 3.2. Axioms for the Probabilities of Moivrean Events.......................................68 3.3. Zero Probabilities....................................................................................... ..70 3.4. A Sample-Space Analysis of the Event-Tree Axioms.................................72 3.5. Probabilities and Expected Values for Variables.........................................74 3.6. Martingales......................................................................................... .........79 3.7. The Expectation of a Variable in a Cut........................................................83 3.8. Conditional Expected Value and Conditional Expectation.........................87 Chapter 4. The Meaning of Probability...........................................................................91 4.1. The Interpretation of Expected Value..........................................................92 4.2. The Interpretation of Expectation................................................................95 4.3. The Long Run..............................................................................................98 4.4. Changes in Belief.........................................................................................101 4.5. The Empirical Validation of Probability......................................................106 4.6. The Diversity of Uses of Probability...........................................................108 4.7. Notes on the Literature.................................................................................110 Chapter 5. Independent Events.......................................................................................113 5.1. Independence........................................................................................ .......114 5.2. Weak Independence.....................................................................................118 5.3. The Principle of the Common Cause...........................................................121 5.4. Conditional Independence............................................................................128 5.5. Notes on the Literature.................................................................................133 Chapter 6. Events Tracking Events.................................................................................135 6.1. Tracking............................................................................................ ...........137 6.2. Tracking and Conditional Independence.....................................................142 6.3. Stochastic Subsequence...............................................................................143 6.4. Singular Diagrams for Stochastic Subsequence...........................................147 6.5. Conjunctive and Interactive Forks...............................................................149 Chapter 7. Events as Signs of Events..............................................................................153 iii 7.1. Sign................................................................................................ ..............154 7.2. Weak Sign................................................................................................ ....159 7.3. The Ethics of Causal Talk............................................................................160 7.4. Screening Off...............................................................................................16 2 Chapter 8. Independent Variables...................................................................................167 8.1. Unconditional Independence........................................................................170 8.2. Conditional Independence............................................................................175 8.3. Independence for Partitions.........................................................................177 8.4. Independence for Families of Variables......................................................182 8.5. Individual Properties of the Independence Relations...................................186 Chapter 9. Variables Tracking Variables........................................................................189 9.1. Tracking and Conditional Independence: A Summary...............................190 9.2. Strong Tracking............................................................................................ 192 9.3. Strong Tracking and Conditional Independence..........................................198 9.4. Stochastic Subsequence...............................................................................201 9.5. Functional Dependence................................................................................203 9.6. Tracking in Mean.........................................................................................204 9.7. Linear Tracking............................................................................................ 207 9.8. Tracking by Partitions..................................................................................210 9.9. Tracking by Families of Variables...............................................................212 Chapter 10. Variables as Signs of Variables...................................................................215 10.1. Sign................................................................................................ ............219 10.2. Linear Sign................................................................................................ .222 10.3. Scored Sign................................................................................................ 225 10.4. Families of Variables.................................................................................227 Chapter 11. AnTheory of Event Trees.............................................................229 11.1. Event Trees as Sets of Sets........................................................................230 11.2. Event Trees as Partially Ordered Sets........................................................232 iv 11.3. Regular Event Trees...................................................................................240 11.4. The Resolution of Moivrean Variables......................................................244 11.5. Humean Events and Variables...................................................................246 Chapter 12. Martingale Trees..........................................................................................247 12.1. Examples of Decision Trees......................................................................249 12.2. The Meaning of Probability in a Decision Tree.........................................253 12.3. Martingales......................................................................................... .......257 12.4. The Structure of Martingale Trees.............................................................261 12.5. Probability and Causality...........................................................................265 12.6. Lower and Upper Probability.....................................................................269 12.7. The Law of Large Numbers.......................................................................272 12.8. Notes on the Literature...............................................................................274 Chapter 13. Refining............................................................................................ ...........275 13.1. Examples of Refinement............................................................................277 13.2. A Constructive Definition of Finite Refinement.......................................281 13.3. Axioms for Refinement..............................................................................282 13.4. Lifting Moivrean Events and Variables.....................................................288 13.5. Refining Martingale Trees.........................................................................288 13.6. Grounding........................................................................................... .......294 Chapter 14. Principles of Causal Conjecture..................................................................299 14.1. The Diversity of Causal Explanation.........................................................302 14.2. The Mean Effect of the Happening of a Moivrean Event..........................305 14.3. The Effect of a Humean Variable..............................................................311 14.4. Attribution and Generality.........................................................................316 14.5. The Statistical Measurement of the Effect of a Cause...............................319 14.6. Measurement by Experiment.....................................................................320 14.7. Using Our Knowledge of How Things Work............................................322 v 14.8. Sampling Error...........................................................................................329 14.9. The Sampling Frame..................................................................................329 14.10. Notes on the Literature.............................................................................330 Chapter 15. Causal Models.............................................................................................3 31 15.1. The Causal Interpretation of Statistical Prediction....................................333 15.2. Generalizing to a Family of Exogenous Variables....................................337 15.3 Some Joint Causal Diagrams......................................................................339 15.4. Causal Path Diagrams................................................................................342 15.5. Causal Relevance Diagrams.......................................................................346 15.6. The Meaning of Latent Variables..............................................................352 15.7. Notes on the Literature...............................................................................357 Chapter 16. Representing Probability Trees...................................................................359 16.1. Three Graphical Representations...............................................................361 16.2. Skeletal Simplifications.............................................................................368 16.3. Martingale Trees in Type Theory...............................................................371 Appendix A. Huygens’s Probability Trees.....................................................................379 Huygens’s Manuscript in Translation..................................................................380 Appendix B. Some Elements of Graph Theory..............................................................385 B1. Undirected Graphs........................................................................................385 B2. Directed Graphs............................................................................................38 6 Appendix C. Some Elements of Order Theory...............................................................393 C1. Partial and Quasi Orderings.........................................................................393 C2. Singular and Joint Diagrams for Binary Relations.......................................394 C3. Lattices............................................................................................ .............395 C4. The Lattice of Partitions of a Set..................................................................396 Appendix D. The Sample-Space Framework for Probability.........................................399 D1. Probability Measures....................................................................................399 D2. Variables........................................................................................... ...........400 vi D3. Families of Variables...................................................................................401 D4. Expected Value............................................................................................402 D5. The Law of Large Numbers.........................................................................405 D6. Conditional Probability................................................................................406 D7. Conditional Expected Value........................................................................407 Appendix E. Prediction in Probability Spaces................................................................409 E1. Conditional Distribution...............................................................................411 E2. Regression on a Single Variable...................................................................412 E3. Regression on a Partition or a Family of Variables......................................415 E4. Linear Regression on a Single Variable.......................................................418 E5. Linear Regression on a Family of Variables................................................422 Appendix F. Sample-Space Concepts of Independence.................................................425 F1. Overview............................................................................................ ...........426 F2. Independence Proper.....................................................................................432 F3. Unpredictability in Mean..............................................................................434 F4. Simple Uncorrelatedness..............................................................................437 F5. Mixed Uncorrelatedness...............................................................................438 F6. Partial Uncorrelatedness...............................................................................440 F7. Independence for Partitions..........................................................................442 F8. Independence for Families of Variables.......................................................445 F9. The Basic Role of Uncorrelatedness.............................................................448 F10. Dawid’s Axioms.........................................................................................449 Appendix G. Prediction Diagrams..................................................................................453 G1. Path Diagrams............................................................................................ ..454 G2. Generalized Path Diagrams..........................................................................462 G3. Relevance Diagrams.....................................................................................466 G4. Bubbled Relevance Diagrams......................................................................475 Appendix H. Abstract Stochastic Processes...................................................................479 vii H1. Probability Conditionals and Probability Distributions...............................477 H2. Abstract Stochastic Processes......................................................................479 H3. Embedding Variables and Processes in a Sample Space.............................480 References.......................................................................................... ..............................491. (shrink)

We study the complexity of isomorphism of classes of metric structures using methods from infinitary continuous logic. For Borel classes of locally compact structures, we prove that if the equivalence relation of isomorphism is potentially $\mathbf {\Sigma }^0_2$, then it is essentially countable. We also provide an equivalent model-theoretic condition that is easy to check in practice. This theorem is a common generalization of a result of Hjorth about pseudo-connected metric spaces and a result of Hjorth–Kechris about discrete structures. (...) As a different application, we also give a new proof of Kechris’s theorem that orbit equivalence relations of actions of Polish locally compact groups are essentially countable. (shrink)

LetXbe a standard Borel space, and letEbe acountableBorel equivalence relation onX, i.e., a Borel equivalence relationEfor which every equivalence class [x]Eis countable. By a result of Feldman-Moore [FM],Eis induced by the orbits of a Borel action of a countable groupGonX.The structure of general countable Borel equivalence relations is very little understood. However, a lot is known for the particularly important subclass consisting of hyperfinite relations. A countable Borel equivalence relation is calledhyperfiniteif it is induced by (...) a Borel ℤ-action, i.e., by the orbits of a single Borel automorphism. Such relations are studied and classified in [DJK]. It is shown in Ornstein-Weiss [OW] and Connes-Feldman-Weiss [CFW] that for every Borel equivalence relationEinduced by a Borel action of a countable amenable groupGonXand for every probability measure μ onX, there is a Borel invariant setY⊆Xwith μ = 1 such thatE↾Y is hyperfinite. Motivated by this result, Weiss [W2] raised the question of whether everyEinduced by a Borel action of a countable amenable group is hyperfinite. Later on Weiss showed that this is true forG= ℤn. However, the problem is still open even for abelianG. Our main purpose here is to provide a weaker affirmative answer for general amenableG. We need a definition first. Given two standard Borel spacesX, Y, auniversally measurableisomorphism betweenXandYis a bijection ƒ:X→Ysuch that both ƒ, ƒ-1are universally measurable. Notice now that to assert that a countable Borel equivalence relation onXis hyperfinite is trivially equivalent to saying that there is a standard Borel spaceYand a hyperfinite Borel equivalence relationFonY, which isBorelisomorphic toE, i.e., there is a Borel bijection ƒ:X→YwithxEy⇔ ƒFƒ. We have the following theorem. (shrink)

In this article we present a conjecture regarding the biology of subjectivity and feeling, based on biophysical and phenomenological considerations. We propose that feeling, as a subjective phenomenon, would come to life as a process of resistance to variance hypothesized to occur during the unfolding of cognition and behaviours in the wakeful and emoting individual. After showing how the notion of affect, when considered from a biological standpoint, suggests an underlying process of resistance to variance, we discuss how vigilance, (...) emotional arousal and attentional behaviours reflect a dynamics of controlled over-excitation related to cognitive integration and control. This can be described as a form of resistance to variance. We discuss how such a dynamics objectively creates an internal state of tension and affectedness in the system that could be associated with subjective states. Such a dynamics is shaped by the system's need to cope with its own inertia, to engage in intentional behaviours, attend, preserve coherence, grapple with divergent cognitive, emotional and motivational tendencies, and delayed auto-perturbations of the brain-body system. More generally, it is related to the need to respect the hierarchy of the various influences which affect its internal dynamics and organization. (shrink)

This article delineates the notion of conjectural artworks—that is, ways of thinking and explaining formal and relational phenomena by visual means—and presents an appraisal and review of the use of such visual ways in the work of Chilean biologists and philosophers Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Particularly, the article focuses on their recurrent uses of Cellular Automaton, that is, discrete, locally interacting, rule-based mathematical models, as conjectural artworks for understanding the concepts of autopoiesis, structural coupling, cognition and enaction: (i.e. Protobio (...) and Bittorio). Additionally, the article proposes a new model of conjectural artwork based on an extension of cellular automaton: random Boolean networks namely, binary systems with variable local connections. Such model, as it is argued, is useful to connect the theoretical frameworks by Maturana and Varela, especially structural coupling and enaction, with other relevant fields such as biosemiotics’ Umwelt-research and cognitive landscapes in neurodynamics, and to advance and explore the concepts of structurally coupled categorization and generalization. (shrink)

Two fundamental errors led Einstein to reject generally covariant gravitational field equations for over two years as he was developing his general theory of relativity. The first is well known in the literature. It was the presumption that weak, static gravitational fields must be spatially flat and a corresponding assumption about his weak field equations. I conjecture that a second hitherto unrecognized error also defeated Einstein's efforts. The same error, months later, allowed the hole argument to convince Einstein that (...) all generally covariant gravitational field equations would be physically uninteresting. (shrink)

Louveau showed that if a Borel set in a Polish space happens to be in a Borel Wadge class $$\Gamma $$, then its $$\Gamma $$ -code can be obtained from its Borel code in a hyperarithmetical manner. We extend Louveau’s theorem to Borel functions: If a Borel function on a Polish space happens to be a $$ \underset{\widetilde{}}{\varvec{\Sigma }}\hbox {}_t$$ -function, then one can find its $$ \underset{\widetilde{}}{\varvec{\Sigma }}\hbox {}_t$$ -code hyperarithmetically relative to its (...) class='Hi'>Borel code. More generally, we prove extension-type, domination-type, and decomposition-type variants of Louveau’s theorem for Borel functions. (shrink)

We answer a question of Slaman and Steel by showing that a version of Martin’s conjecture holds for all regressive functions on the hyperarithmetic degrees. A key step in our proof, which may have applications to other cases of Martin’s conjecture, consists of showing that we can always reduce to the case of a continuous function.

The maximum entropy principle is widely used to determine non-committal probabilities on a finite domain, subject to a set of constraints, but its application to continuous domains is notoriously problematic. This paper concerns an intermediate case, where the domain is a first-order predicate language. Two strategies have been put forward for applying the maximum entropy principle on such a domain: applying it to finite sublanguages and taking the pointwise limit of the resulting probabilities as the size n of the sublanguage (...) increases; selecting a probability function on the language as a whole whose entropy on finite sublanguages of size n is not dominated by that of any other probability function for sufficiently large n. The entropy-limit conjecture says that, where these two approaches yield determinate probabilities, the two methods yield the same probabilities. If this conjecture is found to be true, it would provide a boost to the project of seeking a single canonical inductive logic—a project which faltered when Carnap's attempts in this direction succeeded only in determining a continuum of inductive methods. The truth of the conjecture would also boost the project of providing a canonical characterisation of normal or default models of first-order theories. Hitherto, the entropy-limit conjecture has been verified for languages which contain only unary predicate symbols and also for the case in which the constraints can be captured by a categorical statement of quantifier complexity. This paper shows that the entropy-limit conjecture also holds for categorical statements of complexity, for various non-categorical constraints, and in certain other general situations. (shrink)

We prove (in ZFC Set Theory) that all infinite games whose winning sets are of the following forms are determined: (1) (A - S) ∪ B, where A is $\Pi^0_2, \bar\bar{S}, 2^{\aleph_0}$ , and the games whose winning set is B is "strongly determined" (meaning that all of its subgames are determined). (2) A Boolean combination of Σ 0 2 sets and sets smaller than the continuum. This also enables us to show that strong determinateness is not preserved under complementation, (...) improving a result of Morton Davis which required the continuum hypothesis to prove this fact. Various open questions related to the above results are discussed. Our main conjecture is that (2) above remains true when "Σ 0 2 " is replaced by "Borel". (shrink)

We investigate how weak square principles are denied by Chang’s Conjecture and its generalizations. Among other things we prove that Chang’s Conjecture does not imply the failure of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\square_{\omega_1, 2}}$$\end{document}, i.e. Chang’s Conjecture is consistent with \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\square_{\omega_1, 2}}$$\end{document}.

The two purposes of this essay. The general philosophical problem with most versions of social libertarianism and how this essay will proceed. The specific problem with liberty explained by a thought-experiment. The positive and abstract theory of interpersonal liberty-in-itself as ‘the absence of interpersonal initiated constraints on want-satisfaction’, for short ‘no initiated impositions’. The individualistic liberty-maximisation theory solves the problems of clashes, defences, and rectifications without entailing interpersonal utility comparisons or libertarian consequentialism. The practical implications of instantiating liberty: three rules (...) of liberty-in-practice, 1) initial ultimate control of one’s body, 2) initial ultimate control of one’s used resources, 3) consensual interpersonal interactions and resource transfers. These rules are economically efficient and maximise general want-satisfaction. Private property and legal remedies are additional practical institutional aspects, but to which ‘initiated impositions’ then apply prima facie. Libertarian law is often mistaken for complete libertarianism. Moral explanations are a separate issue. The three main moral theories imply libertarianism, but it can be morally posited independently of them. Critical rationalism and its application. No empirical or argumentative support for theories. An important ambiguity with ‘justification’. How the epistemology applies to the theory of liberty and its application but remains separable in principle. Conclusion: there are further published explanations but this should be enough to generate useful criticism. Appendix replying to some typical comments. (shrink)