We show that the e-degree 0'e and the map u ↦ u' are definable in the upper semilattice of all e-degrees. The class of total e-degrees ≥0'e is also definable.

[1] Sefer Orḥot Ḥayim leha-Rosh ʻim beʼur "ha-Shem orḥotenu" ... 2. Ḳunṭres Be-Shaʻar ha-melekh ʻal haḳdamat ha-Rambam, kolel tsiyunim u-meḳorim u-veʼurim be-divre ha-Rambam ṿeha-Raʼabad ... 3. Ḳunṭres Tashlum yefeh ʻenayim ʻal Seder Zeraʻim u-Ṭehorot, ʻeduyot, Tamid, Midot, Ḳenim ṿe-ʻod ṿe-hu tsiyunim ʻal mas. elu mi-Yerushalmi u-midrashim ... 4. Ḳunṭres Marʼot maḳom, ṿe-hu tsiyunim ʻal ha-meḳomot she-Rashi ṿe-Tos. meviʼim mirdrash o Yerushalmi ṿe-Tosefta ṿe-khu. ṿe-lo tsuyan meḳoro ... 5. Ḳunṭres Ṭeʻama de-ḳara, ṿe-hu ḳetsat ḥidushim ʻal ha-Torah ṿe-ʻal Neviʼim u-Khetuvim -- ḥeleḳ (...) 3. Heʻarot ʻal seder ha-Shas (ṿe-kholel gam ezeh ḳunṭresim). (shrink)

Faults; religious aspects; Islam; Islamic daʻwah.

A law is one of the basic concepts of the dialectical materialist conception of determinism as a philosophical theory of the objective interrelationship and mutual conditioning of phenomena in the material and mental world. A law establishes a rigorously determined connection among circumstances, i.e., a totality of derivative components and conditions of their actions and results. By overlooking the existence of two different levels—the concept and the objective reality corresponding to it—some philosophers erroneously interpret Marx's theses concerning the approximateness of (...) the realization of the laws of society. Let us take, for example, Marx's thesis that "In general, in capitalist production general laws are realized in a very confused and approximate way, merely as a prevailing tendency, as a kind of average among constant fluctuations that is never solidly established."1 Some investigators see this as an objectively existing social law in itself, attributing to it an "inexactitude" of operation, variation, and approximation, instead of seeing it as a specific application of a particular law. They thus forget that Marx said, in the Foreword to the very first volume of Capital: "The question does not specifically have to do with a greater or lesser degree of development of the social antagonisms that derive from the natural laws of capitalist production, but rather lies in these laws themselves, these trends, which operate and are realized with iron necessity.". (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)

Muslim women; religious life; Islmic call.

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)

Hermann Cohen’s essay on Maimonides’ ethics is one of the most fundamental texts of twentieth-century Jewish philosophy, correlating Platonic, prophetic, Maimonidean, and Kantian traditions. Almut Sh. Bruckstein provides the first English translation and her own extensive commentary on this landmark 1908 work, which inspired readings of medieval and rabbinic sources by Leo Strauss, Franz Rosenzweig, and Emmanuel Levinas. Cohen rejects the notion that we should try to understand texts of the past solely in the context of their own historical era. (...) Subverting the historical order, he interprets the ethical meanings of texts in the light of a future yet to be realized. He commits the entire Jewish tradition to a universal socialism prophetically inspired by ideals of humanity, peace, and universal justice. Through her own probing commentary on Cohen’s text, like the margin notes of a medieval treatise, Bruckstein performs the hermeneutical act that lies at the core of Cohen’s argument: she reads Jewish sources from a perspective that recognizes the interpretive act of commentary itself. (shrink)