Hasil untuk "Logic"

S. Lane, I. Moerdijk

M. Obstfeld

W. Kneale, M. Kneale

L. Zadeh, G. Klir, B. Yuan

E. Dantsin, Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob et al.

B. Russell

J. Gerbrandy

V. Derycke, R. Martel, J. Appenzeller et al.

Kristina Heinonen, T. Strandvik, Karl-Jacob Mickelsson et al.

M. Clavel, F. Durán, S. Eker et al.

A. Imre, G. Csaba, L. Ji et al.

F. Jameson

R. Stärk, Stanislas Nanchen

We introduce a logic for sequential, non distributed Abstract State Machines. Unlike other logics for ASMs which are based on dynamic logic, our logic is based on atomic propositions for the function updates of transition rules. We do not assume that the transition rules of ASMs are in normal form, for example, that they concern distinct cases. Instead we allow structuring concepts of ASM rules including sequential composition and possibly recursive submachine calls. We show that several axioms that have been proposed for reasoning about ASMs are derivable in our system and that the logic is complete for hierarchical (non-recursive) ASMs.

B. Behin-Aein, D. Datta, S. Salahuddin et al.

Jingkai He

B. N. Alajmi, K. Ahmed, S. Finney et al.

Sheng Lin, Yong-Bin Kim, F. Lombardi

J. Bonnet, Peter Yin, Monica E. Ortiz et al.

In this rejoinder, I engage with the criticism my book Systematic Theology as a Rationally Justified Public Discourse about God receives from Lois Malcolm and Dirk Evers. First, I answer two objections from Malcolm focusing on the comprehensiveness of my vision for theology and my understanding of “public.” As to the comprehensiveness, I defend my stricter understanding of realism based on the notion of theoretical frameworks; I defend my stricter notion of truth as coherence as the most fruitful understanding for academic theology. As to the public character, I reject Malcolm’s critique that my understanding of “public” is too narrow, since I deliberately limit the investigated context to research universities; thus, I have no problem accepting that there are other publics of theological interest at another point. Second, I answer five objections from Evers that are stated as clusters of critical questions: (1) I accept that I see the change in metaphysics as the context that calls for renewed theological answers, but (2), I reject that this is a problem. The institutional problems for theology are related to a changed metaphysical context in the Western world. (3), I defend the place of logic in metaphysics even though it is in a weakened form compared with classical logic. (4), I defend the need for a third-level academic theology that sustains everyday belief. (5), I accept that God is semper maior but reject that this makes theological theories of God superfluous.