SSHADE, its solid spectra databases and its future band list of molecular solids

<p>The SSHADE database infrastructure (http://www.sshade.eu) hosts spectral data of many different types of solids: ices, snows, minerals, carbonaceous matters, meteorites, IDPs and other cosmo-materials,… covering a wide range of wavelengths: from X-rays to millimeter wavelengths.</p> <p>Its Search / Visualization / Export interface is open to the community since February 2018. It currently contains over 3500 spectra.</p> <p>We are currently developping a 'band list' database that will provide the band parameters (position, width, intensity, isotopic  species, attribution mode, ...) of a number of solids of astrophysical and planetary interest in various phases (crystalline, amorphous, ...) and mixtures (different compositions) and at different temperatures or pressures. We will first feed this database from critical compilations of all data published in various journals for pure ices and molecular solids (hydrates, clathrates, sulfur compounds, ...) and their mixture, including the own works of the members of the SSHADE consortium.</p> <p>An efficient search tool will allow to filter on various parameters such as band position (or spectral range) and intensity, expected molecular or atomic formula, type of vibration (e.g. infrared, Raman, fluorescence...) and display the results graphically. A demonstrator prototype is online in the 'old GhoSST' database (https://ghosst.osug.fr/search/band).</p> <p>This band list will be a key tool for astronomers and space explorers to identify unknown absorption bands observed in the spectra of the surface or atmosphere of many objects in the solar system. Once the best candidate solid selected by the user the tool will point to the best relevant spectral data present in the SSHADE databases. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

Another plan for negation

The paper presents a plan for negation, proposing a paradigm shift from the Australian plan for negation, leading to a family of contra-classical logics. The two main ideas are the following: Instead of shifting points of evaluation (in a frame), shift the evaluated formula. Introduce an incompatibility set for every atomic formula, extended to any compound formula, and impose the condition on valuations that a formula evaluates to true iff all the formulas in its incompatibility set evaluate to false. Thus, atomic sentences are not independent in their truth-values. The resulting negation, in addition to excluding the negated formula, provides a positive alternative to the negated formula. I also present a sound and complete natural deduction proof systems for those logics. In addition, the kind of negation considered in this paper is shown to provide an innovative notion of grounding negation.

Knowledge Representation in Probabilistic Spatio-Temporal Knowledge Bases

We represent knowledge as integrity constraints in a formalization of probabilistic spatio-temporal knowledge bases. We start by defining the syntax and semantics of a formalization called PST knowledge bases. This definition generalizes an earlier version, called SPOT, which is a declarative framework for the representation and processing of probabilistic spatio-temporal data where probability is represented as an interval because the exact value is unknown. We augment the previous definition by adding a type of non-atomic formula that expresses integrity constraints. The result is a highly expressive formalism for knowledge representation dealing with probabilistic spatio-temporal data. We obtain complexity results both for checking the consistency of PST knowledge bases and for answering queries in PST knowledge bases, and also specify tractable cases. All the domains in the PST framework are finite, but we extend our results also to arbitrarily large finite domains.

First Order Languages: Further Syntax and Semantics

First Order Languages: Further Syntax and SemanticsThird of a series of articles laying down the bases for classical first order model theory. Interpretation of a language in a universe set. Evaluation of a term in a universe. Truth evaluation of an atomic formula. Reassigning the value of a symbol in a given interpretation. Syntax and semantics of a non atomic formula are then defined concurrently (this point is explained in [16], 4.2.1). As a consequence, the evaluation of any w.f.f. string and the relation of logical implication are introduced. Depth of a formula. Definition of satisfaction and entailment (aka entailment or logical implication) relations, see [18] III.3.2 and III.4.1 respectively.

A solution of the uniform word problem for ortholattices

The uniform word problem for finitely presented ortholattices is shown to be solvable through a method of terminating proof search. The axioms of ortholattices are all Harrop formulas, and thus can be expressed in natural deduction style as single succedent rules. A system of natural deduction style rules for orthologic is given as an extension of the system for lattices presented by Negri and von Plato. By considering formal derivations of atomic formulas from a finite number of given atomic formulas, it is shown that proof search is bounded, and thus that the question of derivability of any atomic formula from any finite set of given atomic formulas is decidable.

A normal form theorem for first order formulas and its application to Gaifman's splitting theorem

Let L be a first order predicate calculus with equality which has a fixed binary predicate symbol <. In this paper, we shall deal with quantifiers Cx, ∀x ≦ y, ∃x ≦ y defined as follows: CxA(x) is ∀y∃x(y ≦ x ∧ A(x)), ∀x ≦ yA{x) is ∀x(x ≦ y ⊃ A(x)), and ∃x ≦ yA(x) is ∃x(x ≦ y ∧ 4(x)). The expressions x̄, ȳ, … will be used to denote sequences of variables. In particular, x̄ stands for 〈x1, …, xn〉 and ȳ stands for 〈y1,…, ym〉 for some n, m. Also ∃x̄, ∀x̄ ≦ ȳ, … will be used to denote ∃x1 ∃x2 … ∃xn, ∀x1 ≦ y1 ∀x2 ≦ y2 … ∀xn ≦ yn, …, respectively. Let X be a set of formulas in L such that X contains every atomic formula and is closed under substitution of free variables and applications of propositional connectives ¬(not), ∧(and), ∨(or). Then, ∑(X) is the set of formulas of the form ∃x̄B(x̄), where B ∈ X, and Φ(X) is the set of formulas of the form.Since X is closed under ∧, ∨, the two sets Σ(X) and Φ(X) are closed under ∧, ∨ in the following sense: for any formulas A and B in Σ(X) [Φ(X)], there are formulas in Σ(X)[ Φ(X)] which are obtained from A ∧ B and A ∨ B by bringing some quantifiers forward in the usual manner.

Failures of the interpolation lemma in quantified modal logic

Beth's Definability Theorem, and consequently the Interpolation Lemma, fail for the version of quantified S5 that is presented in Kripke's [6]. These failures persist when the constant domain axiom-scheme ∀x□φ ≡ □∀xφ is added to S5 or, indeed, to any weaker extension of quantificational K.§1 reviews some standard material on quantificational modal logic. This is in contrast to quantified intermediate logics for, as Gabbay [6] has shown, the Interpolation Lemma holds for the logic CD with constant domains and for several of its extensions. §§2—4 establish the negative results for the systems based upon S5. §5 establishes a more general negative result and, finally, §6 considers some positive results and open problems. A basic knowledge of classical and modal quantificational logic is presupposed.Let me briefly review the relevant model theory for quantified modal logic. Further details can be found in [3] or [7].The language is obtained from the language for classical first-order logic with identity by adding a unary operator □ for necessity. The atomic formula ‘Ex’ is used as an abbreviation for ‘∃y(y = x)’ and may be read as ‘x exists’.

A remark on Scott's interpolation theorem for Lω1ω

In [1], H. Africk proved that Scott's interpolation theorem does not hold in the infinitary logic Lω1ω. In this paper we shall show that there is an interpolation theorem in Lω1ω which can be considered as an extension of Scott's interpolation theorem in Lω1ω by using a technique developed in Motohashi [2] and [3]. We use the terminology in [1]. Therefore {Ri; i ∈ J} is the set of predicate symbols in our language. Now let us divide the set of all the free variables into mutually disjoint infinite sets {VI; I ⊆ J}. Suppose that ℱ ⊆ (J). Then a formula in Lω1ω is said to be an ℱ′-formula if it is obtained from atomic formula of the form Ri(X1, …, Xn) for some I ∈ i ∈ I and X1, …, Xn in V1,, by applying ¬ (negation), ∧ (countable conjunction), ∨ (countable disjunction), → (implication), ∀ (universal quantification), and ∃ (existential quantification). Notice that every ℱ-sentence in [1] is an ℱ′. sentence (ℱ′-closed formula) in our sense.Then we have the following theorem which is an immediate consequence of the interpolation theorem in [2].Theorem. Let A and ? be sentences. There is an ℱ′-sentence C such that A→C and C→B are provable iff whenever and are ℱ-isomorphic structures and satisfies A, then satisfies B.