Scope Parallelism in Coordination in Dependent Type Semantics

Author(s):  
Yusuke Kubota ◽  
Robert Levine
Diabetes ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 510-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. C. Robbins ◽  
S. E. Shoelson ◽  
H. S. Tager ◽  
P. M. Mead ◽  
D. H. Gaynor

2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 503-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Atkey ◽  
Neil Ghani ◽  
Patricia Johann

1996 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 509-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Ronald Kahn, M.D ◽  
David Vicent, M.D ◽  
Alessandro Doria, M.D., Ph.D

1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
HERMAN GEUVERS ◽  
ERIK BARENDSEN

We look at two different ways of interpreting logic in the dependent type system λP. The first is by a direct formulas-as-types interpretation à la Howard where the logical derivation rules are mapped to derivation rules in the type system. The second is by viewing λP as a Logical Framework, following Harper et al. (1987) and Harper et al. (1993). The type system is then used as the meta-language in which various logics can be coded.We give a (brief) overview of known (syntactical) results about λP. Then we discuss two issues in some more detail. The first is the completeness of the formulas-as-types embedding of minimal first-order predicate logic into λP. This is a remarkably complicated issue, a first proof of which appeared in Geuvers (1993), following ideas in Barendsen and Geuvers (1989) and Swaen (1989). The second issue is the minimality of λP as a logical framework. We will show that some of the rules are actually superfluous (even though they contribute nicely to the generality of the presentation of λP).At the same time we will attempt to provide a gentle introduction to λP and its various aspects and we will try to use little inside knowledge.


2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-117
Author(s):  
Nana Chung ◽  
Thorsten Kreutz ◽  
Thorsten Schiffer ◽  
David Opitz ◽  
Robin Hermann ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 392
Author(s):  
E Matteucci ◽  
C Bertoni ◽  
E Iazzolino ◽  
M Cecere ◽  
E Boldrini ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 143-165
Author(s):  
V.G. Maralov ◽  
◽  
V.A. Sitarov ◽  

The relevance of the problem is due to the importance of identifying factors that determine the propensity of students to coercion or nonviolence, creating psychological and pedagogical conditions for the formation of the socionomic sphere of nonviolent competencies for future specialists at universities. The theoretical basis of the study was the position of nonviolence as a daily practice of interaction, by which we understand the ability of a person to choose from a number of possible alternatives that carry the least charge of coercion. The aim of the work was to study the influence of irrational beliefs and sensitivity to a person (interest, empathy, understanding and assistance) on the students’ tendency to coercion, manipulation, non-violence and non-interference in the processes of interaction with people. The hypothesis was tested that the tendency of students to coercion, manipulation, and noninterference will be due to expressed irrational beliefs and low level of sensitivity to a person and the tendency to non-violence will be explained by the absence of irrational beliefs and a high level of sensitivity to a person. The study involved 125 students of pedagogical and psychological faculties of the Moscow Humanitarian and Cherepovets State universities. The authors used questionnaires to identify the positions of interaction among students and sensitivity to a person, as well as a list of irrational beliefs proposed by A. Beck and A. Freeman. It is established that the tendency to both coercion and manipulation are determined by the beliefs of anti-social type and low sensitivity to the person. The tendency to manipulate the narcissistic beliefs, high interest in people and understanding them, at the same time the tendency to non-violence and non-interference are determined by beliefs of avoidant and dependent types with a low level of understanding people. And a tendency to non-interference is determined by beliefs of dependent type with unexpressed orientation on helping. The tendency to nonviolence is determined by the high sensitivity to a person and the absence of irrational beliefs of antisocial, passive-aggressive and narcissistic types. As a result, the conclusion is made about the need to form purposefully the ability to nonviolent interaction among students, which should include the work on awareness and overcoming irrational beliefs and the development of sensitivity to a person. The obtained results can be used in practical work with students on the formation of their nonviolent competencies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document