First- and Second Order Characterization of Temporal Moments of Stochastic Multipath Channels

Author(s):  
Troels Pedersen
2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (7) ◽  
pp. 575-582
Author(s):  
O. M. Diaz ◽  
J. Prat ◽  
I. Tafur Monroy ◽  
H. de Waardt
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 10473
Author(s):  
Chalongrat Daengngam ◽  
Ishac Kandas ◽  
Islam Ashry ◽  
Jeong-Ah Lee ◽  
Anbo Wang ◽  
...  

Tetrahedron ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (39) ◽  
pp. 8147-8155 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Cidália R. Castro ◽  
M. Belsley ◽  
A. Maurício C. Fonseca ◽  
M. Manuela M. Raposo

2002 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 749-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Culshaw ◽  
Peter Reynolds ◽  
Gavin Sinclair ◽  
Sandra Barr

We report amphibole and mica 40Ar/39Ar ages from the Makkovik Province. Amphibole ages from metamorphic rocks decrease towards the interior of the province, indicating a first-order pattern of monotonic cooling with progressive migration of the province into a more distal back-arc location. The amphibole data, in combination with muscovite ages, reveal a second-order pattern consisting of four stages corresponding to changing spatial and temporal configurations of plutonism and deformation. (1) The western Kaipokok domain cooled through muscovite closure by 1810 Ma, long after the cessation of arc magmatism. (2) The Kaipokok Bay shear zone, bounding the Kaipokok and Aillik domains, cooled through amphibole closure during 1805–1780 Ma, synchronous with emplacement of syn-tectonic granitoid plutons. (3) Between 1740 and 1700 Ma, greenschist-facies shearing occurred along the boundary between the Kaipokok domain and Nain Province synchronous with A-type plutonism and localized shearing in the western Kaipokok domain, cooling to muscovite closure temperatures in the Kaipokok Bay shear zone, and A-type plutonism and amphibole closure or resetting in the Aillik domain. (4) In the period 1650–1640 Ma, muscovite ages, an amphibole age from a shear zone, and resetting of plutonic amphibole indicate a thermal effect coinciding in part with Labradorian plutonism in the Aillik domain. Amphibole ages from dioritic sheets in the juvenile Aillik domain suggest emplacement between 1715 and 1685 Ma. Amphibole ages constrain crystallization of small mafic plutons in the Kaipokok domain (reworked Archean foreland) to be no younger than 1670–1660 Ma. These ages are the oldest yet obtained for Labradorian plutonism in the Makkovik Province.


1970 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-104
Author(s):  
A. B. Slomson

Two cardinals are said to beindistinguishableif there is no sentence of second order logic which discriminates between them. This notion, which is defined precisely below, is closely related to that ofcharacterizablecardinals, introduced and studied by Garland in [3]. In this paper we give an algebraic criterion for two cardinals to be indistinguishable. As a consequence we obtain a straightforward proof of an interesting theorem about characterizable cardinals due to Zykov [6].


2018 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 101-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Rodriguez-Fernandez ◽  
C. Cagli ◽  
L. Perniola ◽  
E. Miranda ◽  
J. Suñé
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Stewart Shapiro

Typically, a formal language has variables that range over a collection of objects, or domain of discourse. A language is ‘second-order’ if it has, in addition, variables that range over sets, functions, properties or relations on the domain of discourse. A language is third-order if it has variables ranging over sets of sets, or functions on relations, and so on. A language is higher-order if it is at least second-order. Second-order languages enjoy a greater expressive power than first-order languages. For example, a set S of sentences is said to be categorical if any two models satisfying S are isomorphic, that is, have the same structure. There are second-order, categorical characterizations of important mathematical structures, including the natural numbers, the real numbers and Euclidean space. It is a consequence of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorems that there is no first-order categorical characterization of any infinite structure. There are also a number of central mathematical notions, such as finitude, countability, minimal closure and well-foundedness, which can be characterized with formulas of second-order languages, but cannot be characterized in first-order languages. Some philosophers argue that second-order logic is not logic. Properties and relations are too obscure for rigorous foundational study, while sets and functions are in the purview of mathematics, not logic; logic should not have an ontology of its own. Other writers disqualify second-order logic because its consequence relation is not effective – there is no recursively enumerable, sound and complete deductive system for second-order logic. The deeper issues underlying the dispute concern the goals and purposes of logical theory. If a logic is to be a calculus, an effective canon of inference, then second-order logic is beyond the pale. If, on the other hand, one aims to codify a standard to which correct reasoning must adhere, and to characterize the descriptive and communicative abilities of informal mathematical practice, then perhaps there is room for second-order logic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document