Skip to content
Free planNo credit card requiredStart writing
AI for Research home
AI for Research home
Dashboard
Sign inGet started

Search 250 million research papers

Read the abstract, see who wrote it and who cites it, and get the citation in APA, MLA, Chicago or Harvard.

About 3,632 papers for “determinacy”

Determinacy

Domenico P. L. Castrigiano, Sandra Hayes · 2019

Cited by 0

Determinacy

Thomas M. Franck · 1990

Abstract If the factor which determines the compliance pull of rule texts is a matter of degree, what determines the degree to which it is present in any given instance? Or, to ask the same question another way: What observable characteristics of a norm or rule of conduct increase or decrease its legitimacy? It is the pursuit of answers to this question which motivates the rest of this book. One could have approached the social phenomenon of non-coerced obedience directly, through such openings as are afforded by study of myths, game theory, or contractarian notions of social compact. Indeed, each of these lines of inquiry will be pursued, but indirectly, through a unifying concept of rule legitimacy: that is, by approaching dynamic social forces through examination of rules, and rule-making or rule applying processes.

Cited by 8

Determinacy

Springer monographs in mathematics · 2008

Cited by 0

Determinacy

Paul Larson · University lecture series · 2023

Cited by 0

Determinacy and . . .

P. D. Welch · 1996

Assuming that all co-analytic games on integers are determined (or equivalently that all reals have "sharps"), we prove (Theorem 1.3) in ZFC that either \\Delta 1 2 -Determinacy holds, or that there is a real d 0 , so that if D = fdng is a countable collection of \\Delta 1 3 degrees above that of d 0 , then D has a \\Delta 1 3 -minimal upper bound. 1 1 Introduction The main theorem of [12] is the following: Theorem 1.1 (ZFC+8r 2 R (r # exists) +: 0 y ) Every countable set of \\Delta 1 3 degrees has a minimal upper bound. We say that for reals f; g 2 ! ! f is \\Delta 1 3 in g, or f 3 g, if there are \\Sigma 1 3 relations \\Phi; \\Psi expressible in second order number theory so that f(n) = m , \\Phi(n; m; g) , :\\Psi(n; m; g). This is a reducibility ordering, and setting f = 3 g , f 3 g & g 3 f we have that = 3 is an equivalence relation on ! ! . We let f denote the equivalence class [f ] =3 . In general, when r is a reducibility ordering (meaning r is a transitive, reflexive...

Cited by 0

In/Determinacy

JUNG, STEPHAN · Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) · 2008

Cited by 0

Projective determinacy

Donald A. Martin, John R. Steel · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 1988

It is shown that projective determinacy follows from large cardinal axioms weaker than the assertion that supercompact cardinals exist.

Cited by 135Open access

Finite Determinacy

David Mond, J. J. Nuño‐Ballesteros · Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften · 2020

Cited by 0

1. Determinacy

Florian Klinger · Stanford University Press eBooks · 2024

Cited by 0

Redefining Determinacy

Thomas M. Franck · 1990

Abstract Determinacy is a literary characteristic of rule texts and of rules; it is about transparency. It denotes a rule’s clarity of meaning: how effectively it communicates with the parties to a dispute. It also denotes the extent to which the rule’s communicative power exerts its own dynamic pull toward compliance, which may not always correlate with its textual clarity. We have noted, with regret-because it would have simplified matters were it otherwise-that the determinacy of a rule is not simply a textual property; nor is it solely a consequence of the literary form in which it is cast. Although very clear rules constructed around quantitative standards (“2500-meter isobath”) and binary categories (“red light to port, green light to starboard”) give the appearance of readly accessible determinacy, this can be misleading.

Cited by 0

Mathematical Determinacy

Jared S. Warren · Oxford University Press eBooks · 2020

This chapter addresses the second major challenge for the extension of conventionalism from logic to mathematics: the richness of mathematical truth. The chapter begins by distinguishing indeterminacy from pluralism and clarifying the crucial notion of open-endedness. It then critically discusses the two major strategies for securing arithmetical categoricity using open-endedness; one based on a collapse theorem, the other on a kind of anti-overspill idea. With this done, a new argument for the categoricity of arithmetic is then presented. In subsequent discussion, the philosophical importance of this categoricity result is called into question to some degree. The categoricity argument is then supplemented by an appeal to the infinitary omega rule, and an argument is given that beings like us can actually follow the omega rule without any violation of Church’s thesis. Finally, the chapter discusses the extension of this type of approach beyond arithmetic, to set theory and the rest of mathematics.

Cited by 0

Interpretation and Determinacy

Jeffrey Goldsworthy · 2024

Abstract Pierre Brunet and Francesca Poggi advocate radical scepticism about the ability of lawyers and judges in civil law jurisdictions, when they interpret statutes, to discover objective meanings capable of resolving legal disagreements. Radical sceptics deny that there are any easy cases in which such objective meanings exist and can be discovered; legal disagreements can only be resolved by creative acts of judicial will. While I agree with their rejection of formalism and literalism, I am sceptical about their scepticism, and defend the orthodox view that there are easy cases in which objective meanings exist and are discoverable. I defend a theory of statutory interpretation as it is actually practiced in the common law world, which I argue is based mainly on the constitutional principle of legislative supremacy. This theory gives prominence to legislative intentions and purposes. I then compare this with Brunet’s and Poggi’s account of statutory interpretation as it is practised in the civil law world. I acknowledge that there may be substantial differences between the two worlds, with respect to the judicial interpretation of statutes. In particular, neo-constitutionalism—as described by Brunet and Poggi—seems to be less viable in common law jurisdictions. Nevertheless, I conclude that radical scepticism remains implausible in both worlds.

Cited by 0

Unforgettable Forgetful Determinacy

SUZANNE ZEITMAN · Journal of Logic and Computation · 1994

This paper presents a relatively compact yet complete proof of the forgetful Determinacy Theorem (FDT) of Yuri Gurevich and Leo Harrington. The original motivation for this theorem was to provide a simpler proof of a powerful decidability result by Michael Rabin. Rabin's result and related techniques have found considerable application in computer science in dealing with the satisfiability problem for modal logics of programs. The FDT asserts the existence of a special kind of winning strategy in a particular class of infinite games. Although it first appeared as part of an alternative proof of Rabin's theorem, the FDT is a game-theoretic result that applies to more general situations than those in which it was originally used. Both the FDT and an earlier result by Richard Büchi and Lawrence Landweber address the issue of what kind of information is necessary to execute the winning strategy. Recently infinite games have been used to model non-terminating computations, and common methods of specification for such computations produce games to which the FDT applies. The original proof of the FDT was sketchy. Other proofs have been given, including one by Alexander and Vladimir Yakhnis that strengthened the result by providing more explicit strategies for the players. Nevertheless, there was still need for a more compact proof. To produce such a proof, we apply a modified version of the one by Yakhnis and Yakhnis to the slightly more general setting of graph-games. We use the notion of graph-games to emphasize the relationship between the FDT and the earlier result by Büchi and Landweber.

Cited by 15

Determinacy and disjunctivity

Cambridge University Press eBooks · 1992

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Cited by 0

Dynamic determinacy analysis

Max Schäfer, Manu Sridharan, Julian Dolby et al. · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · 2013

We present an analysis for identifying determinate variables and expressions that always have the same value at a given program point. This information can be exploited by client analyses and tools to, e.g., identify dead code or specialize uses of dynamic language constructs such as eval, replacing them with equivalent static constructs. Our analysis is completely dynamic and only needs to observe a single execution of the program, yet the determinacy facts it infers hold for any execution. We present a formal soundness proof of the analysis for a simple imperative language, and a prototype implementation that handles full JavaScript. Finally, we report on two case studies that explored how static analysis for JavaScript could leverage the information gathered by dynamic determinacy analysis. We found that in some cases scalability of static pointer analysis was improved dramatically, and that many uses of runtime code generation could be eliminated.

Cited by 12