text:
Abstract a new formal theory dt of truth extending pa
Download 82.1 Kb.
Size 82.1 Kb.
Axioms for determinateness and truth
Solomon Feferman
Abstract A new formal theory DT of truth extending PA is introduced, whose language is that of PA together with one new unary predicate symbol T(x), for truth applied to Gödel numbers of suitable sentences in the extended language. Falsity of x, F(x), is defined as truth of the negation of x; then the formula D(x) expressing that x is the number of a determinate meaningful sentence is defined as the disjunction of T(x) and F(x). The axioms of DT are those of PA extended by (I) full induction, (II) strong compositionality axioms for D, and (III) the recursive defining axioms for T relative to D. By (II) is meant that a sentence satisfies D if and only if all its parts satisfy D; this holds in a slightly modified form for conditional sentences. The main result is that DT has a standard model. As an improvement over earlier systems developed by the author, DT meets a number of leading criteria for formal theories of truth that have been proposed in the recent literature, and comes closer to realizing the informal view that the domain of the truth predicate consists exactly of the determinate meaningful sentences.
KEY WORDS: Axiomatic non-hierarchical theories of truth, determinate meaningfulness
1. Background Much work has been devoted since the 1970s to breaking the binds of Tarskian hierarchies for truth. There are two basic approaches to non-hierarchical theories of truth, semantical and axiomatic. Work as of the early 1990s on both of these was usefully surveyed by Michael Sheard (1994), and as far as I know there has been no comparable canvass of the two approaches that would bring us up to date on the progress that has been made in the intervening years. Much information on that, however, can be gleaned from the piece by Hannes Leitgeb (2007) on criteria for theories of truth, of which more in the final section below. And on the axiomatic side we have the very useful entry by Volker Halbach (2007) in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
This paper is intended as a further contribution to the axiomatic approach that in various respects is an improvement on an earlier effort I made in that direction. Some background is needed to explain in just what respects that is and to motivate the present development. There are only two papers that I've written directly involving axiomatic theories of truth, namely "Toward useful type-free theories. I" (1984) and "Reflecting on incompleteness" (1991), referred to in the following respectively as (F 84) and (F 91). Both of these primarily concern non-hierarchical theories, but their purposes were quite different, as I will explain in a moment. However, there were aspects of each with which I was dissatisfied, and so I gave a good deal of thought off and on since their publication to obtaining more satisfactory theories. I arrived at the one presented here in the fall of 2005, prompted by an invitation to deliver the Tarski lectures at UC Berkeley in April 2006. I had decided that for the first lecture, nothing would be more fitting than to take truth, both as dealt with by Tarski and in certain of its non-hierarchical versions, as the central topic.1 In the event, what I ended up with isin my opiniona formally more elegant system than what had been presented in the 1984 paper and one that is more satisfying philosophically.
Both (F 84) and (F 91) introduced axiomatic systems formulated in classical two-valued logic that were based on the well-known Kripke construction (1975) of a three-valued model for a non-hierarchical truth predicate. Of these, only the one in (F 91) closely axiomatizes that construction itself, and for that reason it has (with minor modifications) come to be referred to as the KF system (or Kripke-Feferman axioms). The Halbach entry (2007), sec. 4.3, gives some of the history surrounding that. Basically, I had presented it in two lectures for the Association of Symbolic Logic, the first in 1979 and the second in 1983, and circulated drafts of the material at that time. It was through those presentations that William Reinhardt (1985, 1986), Andrea Cantini (1989) and Vann McGee (1991) came to know and write about KF prior to the appearance of (F 91).
The aim of (F 91) was to put KF in service of a fairly general notion of reflective closure of an open-ended schematic theoryof what notions and principles one ought to accept if one accepts the basic notions and principles of the theory. This was explained in terms of reflection principles derived most naturally from iterating a non-hierarchical truth predicate. In particular, it was shown in that paper that the reflective closure (in its widest sense) of a schematic version of the Peano axioms for 0, successor and predecessor is of the same strength as predicative analysis. But I always thought that the KF axioms were a bit artificial for that purpose. Subsequently, in my paper (1996) I obtained a new notion for the same general purpose that I called the unfolding of an open-ended schematic theory. This does not require use of a truth predicate, is potentially more widely applicable than reflective closure and is, to my mind, more natural. In particular, Thomas Strahm and I have shown in our joint paper (2000) that the full unfolding of the system of non-finitist arithmetic (the basic schematic Peano axioms) is again of the same strength as predicative analysis. Strahm and I now have work in progress on the unfolding of finitist arithmetic. I mention all this in order to explain in what way (F 91) and its relatively familiar KF axioms are less relevant to the following.
So now let's turn back to the (F 84) paper. That presented some classical axiomatic theories that simultaneously generalized type-free theories of truth and type-free theories of membership. As its title indicates, the purpose was pragmatic. Namely, on the set-theoretical side, there are natural type-free statements that one would like to make about structures whose members are structures and that are not directly accounted for in standard theories of sets, or sets and classes. Category theory abounds in such examples, but one needn't go to anything so fancy to illustrate the idea. Consider, for example, the partially ordered structures; the collection of all these forms a partially ordered structure under the substructure relation, and so should be considered a member of itself. For another example, the structure consisting of all semi-groups forms a semi-group under Cartesian product, up to isomorphism. The planned Part II of "Toward useful type-free theories" was to contain such applications of the axiomatic systems on the set-theoretical side; however, that was never published since the applications did not work out as well as anticipated. In the meantime, I have explored alternative approaches for the same ends (see Feferman (2004), (2006)).
Though the axiomatic systems in (F 84) covered both theories of truth and membership, the possible applications on the former side would be quite different, and it muddied the picture to treat them together. Since these systems deserve reconsideration, another reason for dealing with truth first, as is done here, is that it is in certain respects formally simpler. Let me begin with the informal guiding ideas. As laid out in (F 84) p. 78, if one is to have a consistent theory of truth, there are three possible routes that may be taken in the face of the paradoxes, namely by restriction of (1) language, (2) logic, or (3) basic principles. Examples of (1) are hierarchical theories of truth, such as Tarski's; since the aim here is for a non-hierarchical theory, that route is not taken. Examples of (2) are systems of logic based on three values; in (F 84) p. 95 I argued that "nothing like sustained ordinary reasoning can be carried on" in the familiar such systems that are on offer. In the meantime, a different kind of restriction has been proposed via the use of so-called paraconsistent systems, i.e. those in which contradictions can be proved (or in which the logic is dialetheist) without leading to inconsistency in the sense that all statements follow; the underlying logic for these must thus exclude at a minimum, ex falso quodlibet, but there are also other complicating restrictions that need to be made (cf., e.g., Graham Priest (2002)). So far as I know, it has not been determined whether such logics account for "sustained ordinary reasoning", not only in everyday discourse but also in mathematics and the sciences. If they do, they deserve serious consideration as a possible route under (2). In any case, I have chosen to base my systems on ordinary classical two-valued logic, which certainly meets this criterion. That leaves the route (3); and here the obvious principle needing restriction is what Tarski called the material adequacy condition for truth, namely the T-scheme, according to which T(#A) is equivalent to A for all sentences A, where #A names A in some way or other. (For simplicity, in the following I will omit the '#' sign within the T predicate.) The restriction of the T-scheme taken here is motivated by the following points:
(1) I agree with Bertrand Russell (1908) that every predicate has a domain of significance, and it makes sense to apply the predicate only to objects in that domain. In the case of truth, that domain D consists of the sentences that are meaningful and determinate, i.e. have a definite truth value, true or false. D includes various but not necessarily all grammatically correct sentences that involve the notion of truth itself.2
(2) Some authors (e.g., Kripke 1975) consider sentences like the Liar to be meaningful, though they do not have a determinate truth value (nor, for that matter, does the Truth Teller). My own view is that the Liar is not meaningful, but in order to avoid confusion and to allow for such differences of opinion, have added the modifier 'determinate'. In any case, T(A) implies D(A) for each sentence A.
(3) Thus the restriction of the T-scheme should take the form,
D(A)  (T(A)  A).
(4) Taking the logic of truth to be classical, and writing F(A) for T(A) it follows that
D(A)  (T(A)  F(A))
for each sentence A. But since both T(A)  D(A) and F(A)  D(A) by (1), we must have
D(A)  (T(A)  F(A))
for each A.
(5) Though this serves to identify D in terms of T, the conditions on D should be prior to those on T, i.e. determinate meaningfulness is prior to truth.3 First of all, D is closed under the propositional operations and quantifiers of the first-order predicate calculus (where a formula is taken to belong to D if all its substitution instances by meaningful terms belongs to D.) In the opposite direction, a sentence is meaningful only if all of its parts are meaningful. But that does not hold for determinateness by itself; for example, a disjunction A  B can be considered to have the truth value true if A is true even when B has no truth value. On the other hand, if A  B is both meaningful and determinate, each of A and B must be meaningful. Though that does still not force both A and B to be determinate when at least one of them is true, it is reasonable to require that if we are to have a general rule for determining the truth value of A  B that works internally to D.
And for those who, like me, think that meaningfulness and determinateness coincide, this condition is automatic. At any rate, the closure conditions for D are assumed here to be invertible, and are thus of a biconditional, or strongly compositional form when combined with the closure conditions.
(6) If L0 is a language of which we recognize that each sentence A satisfies D, and S0 is a theory in L0 that we recognize informally to be correct, then we should be able to prove in an extension S of S0 for D and T that each theorem A of S0 satisfies T. Moreover, the statement to that effect should itself satisfy T.
An essential difference of what is done here from (F 84) is that in the latter, the conditions on D are posterior to those on T, not prior to them as required by point (5). In the next section I shall produce a specific system DT whose formulation is motivated by (1)-(6). The consistency of DT is proved in sec. 3 by construction of a model M. The paper concludes with a discussion in sec. 4, including assessment of how far DT goes to meeting the criteria of Leitgeb (2007).
2. The system DT To see how close we can come to following out the preceding ideas in a specific setting, let L0 be the language of arithmetic (PA, our S0), and let L = L0(T) be the extension of L0 by a new unary predicate T. In this case, #A is the numeral of the Gödel number of A and we write T(A) for T(#A) for each sentence A of L. Let F(x) be T(.x) and D(x) be T(x)  F(x). The system DT in the language L is designed to satisfy the following conditions:
(i) its logic is that of the classical first order predicate calculus;
(ii) DT has a model in an expansion of the standard model for PA; we thus require that
PA  DT and DT includes full induction on the natural numbers for all formulas of L;
(iii) D provably satisfies the strongly compositional (i.e., biconditional) conditions meeting the requirement (5) above;
(iv) for x satisfying D, T(x) provably satisfies the usual recursive defining conditions;
(v) DT proves D(A)  (T(A)  A) for each A of L;
(vi) in accordance with (6), DT proves T("x(Sent0(x)  ProvPA(x)  T(x)), where Sent0(x) expresses that x is (the Gödel number of) a sentence of L0.
As examples for (iii), (iv) I mean that DT proves general statements of the following kinds (that will be elaborated below):4
(a) D(T(num(x)))  D(x), and D(x)  [T(T(num(x))  T(x)];
(b) D(.x)  D(x), and D(x)  [T(.x)  T(x)],
(c) D(x . y)  D(x)  D(y), and D(x . y)  [T(x . y)  T(x)  T(y)],
(d) D("z. x)  "y D(sub(num(y), z, x)) if Var(z), and
D("z. x)  [T("z. x)  "y T(sub(num(y), z, x)].
We shall also want that every sentence of L0 satisfies D(x). It is then shown by induction in DT that all numerical substitution instances of provable formulas of PA are true, and hence that DT proves "x(Sent0(x)  ProvPA(x)  T(x)). But it does not follow that that sentence is provably true. In fact, if  is defined as usual in terms of  and , there is a problem about that. For, take  to be a "liar" sentence, i.e. one for which DT proves   T(); then we have D(), since otherwise we would have (T()  ) and arrive at a contradiction.. It then follows from (a) that we have D(T()). However, this will lead to a problem for (vi) with (b)-(d) if we identify A  B with (A  B). Arguing informally, to see that the sentence in (vi) satisfies the T predicate, we will want to show it satisfies the D predicate and then apply (d). Thus if we make that identification we will need to show that for each numeral n,
D((Sent0(n)  ProvPA(n))  T(n)) holds.
But this will require that D(T(n)) must hold for each n and so, in particular, we must have D(T()), which is excluded.
To get around this problem, we do not identify A  B with (A  B) but take it as a separate basic propositional operation, so as to treat the D predicate applied to conditionals in a different way, namely:
(e) D(x . y)  D(x)  (T(x)  D(y)), and D(x . y)  [T(x .y)  (T(x)  T(y))].
However, the logic of  is unchanged, as is the determination of T applied to conditionals; it is only the determination of the D predicate applied to conditionals that is modified.5 Note that we do not in this case meet the requirement (5) above in full.6
Let PAL be the extension of PA by all instances of the induction scheme in L.
The system DT is now specified to consist of the following three groups of axioms:
I. PAL
II. (i) "x[At-Sent0(x)  D(x)]
(ii) "x[ D(T.(num(x))  D(x)]
(iii) "x[SentL(x)  (D(.x)  D(x)]
(iv) "x"y[ SentL(x)  SentL(y)  (D(x.y)  D(x) D(y)],
(v) "x"y[SentL(x)  SentL(y)  (D(x.y)  D(x)  (T(x)  D(y)) ],
(vi) "x, z [Var(z)  SentL("z. x))  (D("z. x)  "y D(sub(num(y), z, x)].
III. (i) for each atomic formula R(x1,…,xk) of L0,
"x1…"xk[ T(R.(num(x1),…,num(xk))  R(x1,…,xk) ]
(ii) "x[ D(x)  ( T(T.(num(x))  T(x) ) ]
(iii) "x [SentL(x)  D(x)  (T(.x)  T(x)) ]
(iv) "x"y[ SentL(x)  SentL(y)  D(x.y)  (T(x.y)  T(x)  T(y)) ].
(v) "x"y[ SentL(x)  SentL(y)  D(x .y)  (T(x.y)  (T(x)  T(y)) ].
(vi) "x, z [ Var(z)  SentL("z. x))  D("z. x) 
(T("z. x)  "y T(sub(num(y), z, x)) ].
Remark. For those who know the work of Aczel (1980), it is seen that the axioms for D, T are similar to those for proposition and truth in Frege structures, op. cit. p. 37. One essential difference is that Aczel only imposes closure conditions on the notion of proposition; that would correspond to weakening the axioms in group II for D by replacing '' throughout by ''. A second essential difference is that Aczel does not have conditions for propositions of the form T(s), and thus none corresponding to our axioms II(ii) and III(ii). An inessential difference is that Aczel's notion of Frege structure is not given as an axiomatic theory.7 Another difference lies in the basic framework; here it is arithmetic, while for Frege structures it is the -calculus. The latter allows for more general interpretations; further work on systems like DT might usefully incorporate similar features. Finally, the proof of consistency of DT given in the next section is somewhat different from Aczel's proof of the existence of Frege structures.
Theorem 1. DT proves the following:
(i) D(A) for each sentence A of L0.
(ii) D(A)  [T(A)  A] for each sentence A of L.
(iii) T("x[Sent0(x)  ProvPA(x)  T(x)]).
Proof. For (i), one first proves more generally for each formula A(x1,…,xk) of L0 that D(A(num(x1),…,num(xk)) is provable in DT, by induction on the formation of A. (ii) is handled similarly for formulas A of L. To prove (iii), let us reason informally in DT. We first show by induction on proofs that for any formula A of L0 with free variables x1,…,xk that is provable in PA, we have T(A(num(x1),…,num(xk)).8 Hence if A is any sentence of L0 provable from PA then T(A), i.e. we have "x[Sent0(x)  ProvPA(x)  T(x)]. Now to show that that sentencecall it Bis true in the sense that T(B) holds, it is sufficient by(ii) to show that D(B) holds. Informally, this comes down to showing that for each n, D(Sent0(n)  ProvPA(n)  T(n)) holds, and that is equivalent to showing that
D(C)  [T(C)  D(T(n))], where C is (Sent0(n)  ProvPA(n)). C is a sentence of L0 so D(C) holds and, moreover, T(C)  C. Now we already know that C  T(n), and of course T(n)  D(T(n)), so that completes the argument.
3. Construction of a standard model for DT. Let M0 = (N,…) be a standard model for PA in the language L0. We shall construct an expansion of M0 to a model M for DT in the language L = L0(T). M will in turn be obtained from a certain three-valued model M*, where the values lie in the set 3 ={t, f, u}. In evaluating compound sentences of L in M*, built up by , , , and ", we make use of weak Kleene semantics (slightly modified in the case of ) for evaluating corresponding operations on 3. Relying on context to avoid ambiguity, we also use the symbols , , , for the corresponding operations on 3, while we use  for the infinitary operation corresponding to ". For
a  3 write D(a) for (a = t or a = f).
Definition 2.
(i) D(a) iff D(a); if D(a) then (a) = t iff a =f, else (a) = u.
(ii) D(a  b) iff D(a) and D(b); if D(a  b) then (a  b) = t iff (a = t or b = t);
else (a  b) = u.
(iii) D(a  b) iff D(a) & (a = f or D(b)); if D(a  b) then
(a  b) = t iff (a = f or b = t); else (a  b) = u.
(iv) D({ai : i  I}) iff D(ai) for each i  I; if D({ai : i  I}) then
{ai : i  I} = t iff for each i  I, ai = t; else {ai : i  I} = u.
Define (a  b) =(a  b). Then we have: D(a  b) iff D(a) and D(b); and if D(a  b) then (a  b) = t iff a = b = t, else its value is u. Similarly, define {ai : i  I} =
{ai : i  I}). Then we have: D({ai : i  I}) iff D(ai) for each i  I; and if
D({ai : i  I}) then {ai : i  I} = t iff ai = t for some i  I, else its value is u. We cannot eliminate  in favor of  and .
Lemma 3. Each of , ,  and  is monotonic on the reflexive ordering of {t, f, u} with u  t, u  f.
Proof. Immediate for all the operations except . To prove it for that, consider any a, b, a, b in 3 with a  a and b  b; to show (a  b)  (a  b). If both D(a) and D(b) this is trivial. Suppose a = u; then not D(a  b) so (a  b) = u, and that is  any value. Thus we may assume a = t or a = f, and b = u. Since (t  u) = u, that is  any value. The final case is (f  u), which = t. Then whatever b is, we have (f  b) = t, too.
In consequence of this lemma, the Kripke (1975) style construction yields an expansion of M0 to a 3-valued structure M* = (M0, T*), where T* is the least fixed point 3-valued predicate under the evaluation of each sentence A of L according to the rules given by Definition 2, together with the requirement that T(A) evaluates the same as A. Note that Kripke used strong Kleene three-valued semantics in his construction, though he pointed out that it works just as well for monotonic operations more generally. Thus we have the following theorem, where we write v(A) for the value of A in 3 given by the semantics of M*.9
Theorem 4. There is a 3-valued model M* of L given by an assignment v(A) in {t, f, u} to each sentence A of L satisfying the following conditions.
(i)(a) if A is an atomic sentence of L0 then v(A) = t or v(A) = f and v(A) = t iff M0 = A.
(i)(b) if s is a closed term and s denotes a sentence A in L, then v(T(s)) = v(A), otherwise v(T(s)) = f.
(ii) v(A) = v(A)
(iii) v(A  B) = v(A)  v(B)
(iv) v(A  B) = v(A)  v(B).
(v) v("x A(x)) = {v(A(n)) : n  N}.
Following the approach of Aczel utilized in (F 84) §11, M* is then converted into a 2-valued model M = (M0, T) of L so that the predicate T holds of n in M iff v(T(n)) = t in M*. The following then specifies satisfaction in M in the standard way.
(i) If A is an atomic sentence of L then M = A iff v(A) = t in M*
(ii) M = A iff not M =A
(iii) M = A  B iff M =A or M = B
(iv) M = A  B iff not M = A or M = B
(v) M = "x A(x) iff M = A(n) for each n  N.
Lemma 6.
(i) M = T(A) iff v(A) = t
(ii) M = F(A) iff v(A) = f
(iii) M = D(A) iff D(v(A))
(iv) M = D(T(A)) iff D(v(A)).
Corollary 7.
(i) For any L0 sentence A: M = D(A)
(ii) For any L sentence A: M = D(T(A))  D(A)
(iii) For each L sentence A: M = D(A)  D(A)
(iv) For any L sentences A, B: M = D(A  B)  D(A)  D(B)
(v) For any L sentences A, B:
M = D(A  B) iff M = D(A)  (T(A)  D(B)).
(vi) For any L sentence "x A(x):
M = D("x A(x)) iff for each n, M = D(A(n)).
Theorem 8.
(i) If A is a sentence of L0 then M = A iff M0 = A.
(ii) For each sentence A of L, if M = D(A) then M = A iff v(A) = t.
(iii) For each sentence A of L, M = D(A)  (T(A)  A).
(iv) For each sentence A of L, M = T(A)  A.
Proofs (i) is immediate by definition of M.
(ii) is proved by induction on the logical complexity of A. It holds for atomic A by Defn. 5(i). Suppose it holds for A and that D(A) holds. Then D(A) holds, so by induction we have M = A iff v(A) = t; thus t.f.a.e.: M = A, v(A)  t, v(A) = f, and v(A) = t. Suppose it holds for A, B and suppose D(A  B) holds in M. Then by Lemma 6, both D(A) and D(B) hold in M. By induction, M = A iff v(A) = t and M = B iff v(B) = t, so M = (A  B) iff v(A  B) = t. Suppose it holds for A, B and suppose D(A  B) holds in M. Then D(A) holds and (T(A)  D(B)) holds. To show that A  B holds in M iff
v(A  B) = t, i.e. iff D(v(A)) and (v(A) = f or v(B) = t). Since D(A) holds, we have D(v(A)), and M = A iff v(A) = t by induction hypothesis. Thus M = (A  B) iff
(v(A) = t implies M = B), and we are reduced to showing that M = B iff v(B) = t when
v(A) = t. But in that case v(T(A)) = t as well, and M = T(A) by definition of M. Since T(A)  D(B) holds in M, it follows that M = D(B); thus we can now apply the induction hypothesis to B, which is exactly what is required to complete this step. Finally, suppose the induction hypothesis holds for A(n) for each n, and suppose D("x A(x)) holds in M, then t.f.a.e. : M = "x A(x); for all n  N, M = A(n); for all n  N, v(A(n)) = t;
v("x A(x)) = t.
(iii) is a corollary of (ii) since if D(A) holds in M, M = A iff v(A) = t, which is equivalent to v(T(A)) = t, and hence to M = T(A).
(iv) is then immediate, since T(A) implies D(A) by definition of D(A) as T(A)  F(A).
Theorem 9. M is a model of DT.
Proof. Since M = (M0, T) is standard for the natural numbers, the axioms for DT are all true in M by the preceding results.
Conjectures
(C1) The proof-theoretic strength of DT is the same as that of RA( 0), Ramified Analysis in levels up to the ordinal 0. I expect a proof of this would follow the methods of (F 91) pp. 25-30. For the upper bound, one makes use of the fact observed by Aczel that the existence of a fixed point for a positive arithemetical inductive definition can be established in the system 11-AC, whose strength was shown by Harvey Friedman to be the same as that of RA( 0). The fixed point statement is used to produce a three-valued model M* satisfying Theorem 4 above; the construction of M from M* is arithmetical. For the lower bound, one uses the fact that transfinite induction up to  for each   0 can be established in DT for all formulas of L. See loc. cit. for more details.10
(C2) Consider a parametric form DT(P) of DT like that of Ref*(PA(P)) in (F 91), obtained by adding a predicate parameter P, relativizing T to P and adding a rule of substitution. I conjecture that the proof-theoretic strength of such a system DT(P) is the same as that of RA( 0), Ramified Analysis in levels up to the least impredicative ordinal 0. A proof would be similar to that for determining the strength of Ref*(PA(P)) in (F 91), pp. 30 ff.
Question: is there a natural non-parametric extension of DT with the same strength as predicative analysis?
4. Discussion. Before getting into broader issues, let's look at how the usual statements that lead to contradictions with the unrestricted T-scheme are accounted for in DT.
1. The liar. Let  be a sentence of L such that DT -   F(). Then DT proves D(), for otherwise we would have  equivalent to T() and thence to F(). Thus we cannot obtain the usual contradiction from the T-scheme in its D-restricted form (Theorem 1 (ii)). Similarly if we take  to be such that DT -   T().
2. The strengthened liar. Let  be a sentence of L such that DT -   D()  F(). Reasoning informally, if D() then  is equivalent to F(), so by 1, we have a contradiction. Hence D(). Informally then,  is true though not determinate in the sense of satisfying D. But on our theory, truth as given by the predicate T does not hold of  or the r.h.s. of its defining equivalence.
3. Alternative strengthened liar. Let * be a sentence of L such that
DT - *  (D(*)  F(*)). Then again we conclude D(*). Now the r.h.s can't satisfy T, since that requires D(D(*)), which is equivalent to D(*).
Various criteria have been proposed for consistent formal theories of truth that contain their own truth predicate. To my mind, the best articulation of these is a recent one due to Hannes Leitgeb (2007).11 He sets down eight of these, each of which has a plausibility in its own right, and various of which are ordinarily taken for granted, but the combination of all of which cannot simultaneously be realized on pain of inconsistency. That is why Leitgeb calls his piece, "What theories of truth should be like (but cannot be)". His eight criteria (a-h) are as follows.
a. Truth should be expressed by a predicate (and a theory of syntax should be available).
b. If a theory of truth is added to mathematical or empirical theories, it should be possible to prove the latter true.
c. The truth predicate should not be subject to any type restrictions.
d. T-biconditionals [in the T-scheme] should be derivable unrestrictedly.
e. Truth should be compositional.
f. The theory should allow for standard interpretations.
g. The outer logic and the inner logic should coincide.
h. The outer logic should be classical.
I won't repeat Leitgeb's elaborations of what these mean except for g, which he explains as follows:
When truth theorists refer to the "outer" and the "inner" logic of a theory of truth, what they mean is that the logical laws in such theories can show up in two different contexts: outside of applications of 'Tr' and inside of such contexts. E.g., there are consistent theories of truth in which both sentences of the form 'A or not A' and 'not Tr('A or not A')' are derivable. While the former are instances of the classical law of excluded middle, the latter deny instances of excluded middle in the context of the truth predicate. Accordingly, although the outer logic of the theory might be genuinely classical, its inner logic certainly is not. This is in contrast with e.g. Tarski's theory, which is an example of a theory of truth for which the outer and the inner logic coincide (in either case, classical logic).
Thus, for example, the outer logic of KF is classical, while its inner logic is that of strong Kleene 3-valued logic, as in Kripke's model.12 The situation is a little different for the system DT, whose outer logic is classical while its inner logic is classical only for sentences satifying the D predicate, since e.g. it proves T(  ). Note that d, the unrestricted T-scheme, implies g. In Leitgeb's view, the importance of condition g is that
whatever reasons there might be for preferring one logic over another, if they apply to linguistic contexts outside the applications of truth predicates, why should they not equally apply to contexts within such applications? Every discrepancy between the outer and the inner logic of a theory of truth would indicate that our calling a sentence true somehow changes the logic that governs our understanding of this sentence. This is definitely questionable. Hence such discrepancies areceteris paribusto be voted out.13
I would add a further criterion to a-h, namely that the logic of the ambient metatheory used to establish consistency of one's theory should be the same as the logic basic to that theory (i.e., its outer logic); this holds for both the systems KF and DT. It does not hold of systems obtained by restricting its basic logic somehow, as is the case, for example, with the paraconsistent logics of Priest (2002) or the logic of Field (2003).14
Going down Leitgeb's list, DT meets the criteria directly or with restriction as follows.
a. Met.
b. Met for the specific case of PA (as a working example); it should be of interest to extend this so as to be applicable to suitable empirical theories as well.
c. Met.
d. Met only for those sentences satisfying the D predicate.
e. Met under the same restriction.
f. Met.
g. Met only to the extent that the inner logic is classical for sentences satisfying the D predicate.
h. Met.
1. The failure of g in general for DT is a prima-facie mark against it, if we take DT to be a first-class citizen in its own right. A fall-back position would be to treat it instrumentally, in the spirit of (F 84).15 But for that one would want to have more than consistency, or even conservation over RA( 0) (assuming the conjecture (C1) at the end of sec. 3 above is right). It is not clear to me just what that "more" should be.
2. Continuing the instrumentalist tack, one can interpret a type-free theory of sets in DT by taking y  x to mean that x is the Gödel number of a formula A with one free variable y such that T(A(num(y))). This is type-free in the sense that various instances of self-membered sets can be produced; how far this could be made useful, for example in the sense of applications to category theory, remains to be seen; see my papers (2004), (2006) for desiderata.
3. The restrictions in d and e seem to me to be more or less compelling, for the reasons given in sec. 1. As to g, the provability in DT of sentences T(A) for which A is provable might be regarded as "unintended consequences" or "anomalies" or "little monsters". In a way this is analogous to other situations in mathematics. For example, to develop a good theory of integration, Lebesgue introduced his theory of measure; that has many excellent properties but also the unintended consequence that there are non-measurable sets whose existence does not affect the positive applications of the theory. Another example is the existence of space-filling curves as a consequence of a good theory of continuous mappings formulated in purely topological terms.
4. If the eventual aim is a theory of truth without such unintended consequences, perhaps a two stage affair can work: a theory of (determinate) meaningfulness followed by a theory of truth. In the first stage one would ascertain (presumably in a non-effective way) which sentences of L are meaningful and have determinate truth value. In the second stage one would introduce a new kind of variable ranging over just those sentences and apply the predicate T only to terms of that kind. I have made efforts in this direction that have so far been unsuccessful, but I am optimistic that something like this can be done, and moreover in a clean and informally convincing way.16
P. Aczel (1980), Frege structures and the notions of proposition, truth and set, in The Kleene Symposium (J. Barwise, et al., eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 31-59.
M. J. Beeson (1985), Foundations of Constructive Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
A. Cantini (1989), Notes on formal theories of truth, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 35, 97–130.
S. Feferman (1984), Toward useful type-free theories I, J. Symbolic Logic 49, 75-111.
__________ (1991), Reflecting on incompleteness, J. Symbolic Logic 56, 1-49.
__________ (1996), Gödel's program for new axioms: Why, where, how and what?, in Gödel '96 (P. Hájek, ed.), Lecture Notes in Logic 6, 3-22.
__________ (2004), Typical ambiguity: trying to have your cake and eat it too, in One Hundred Years of Russell's Paradox (G. Link, ed.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 131-151.
__________ (2006), Enriched stratified systems for the foundations of category theory, in What is Category Theory? (G. Sica, ed.), Polimetrica, Milano, 185-203.
S. Feferman and T. Strahm (2000), The unfolding of non-finitist arithmetic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 104, 75-96.
H. Field (2003), A revenge-immune solution to the semantic paradoxes, J. Philosophical Logic 32, 139–177.
K. Gödel (1944), Russell's mathematical logic, in The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell
(P. A. Schilpp, ed.), Library of Living Philosophers, Northwestern, Evanston, 123-153; reprinted in Gödel (1990), 119-141.
K. Gödel (1990), Collected Works, Vol. II. Publications 1938-1974 (S. Feferman, et al., eds.), Oxford University Press, NY.
V. Halbach (2007), Axiomatic theories of truth, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(E. N. Zalta, ed.), URL = < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic>.
V. Halbach and L. Horsten (2006), Axiomatizing Kripke's theory of truth, J. Symbolic Logic 71, 677–712.
S. Kripke (1975), Outline of a theory of truth, J. of Philosophy 72, 690-716.
H. Leitgeb (2007), What theories of truth should be like (but cannot be), Philosophy Compass 2 (2), 276-290.
B. E. McDonald (2000), On meaningfulness and truth, J. Philosophical Logic 29,
V. McGee (1991), Truth, Vagueness, and Paradox: An Essay on the Logic of Truth, Hackett, Indianapolis.
G. Priest (2002), Paraconsistent logic", in Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2nd Edn.), Vol. 6 (D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht, 287–393.
W. N. Reinhardt (1985), Remarks on significance and meaningful applicability, in Mathematical Logic and Formal Systems (L. Paulo de Alcantara, ed.), Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics 94, 227-242.
W. N. Reinhardt (1986), Some remarks on extending and interpreting theories,with a partial predicate for truth, J. Philosophical Logic 15, 219–51.
B. Russell (1908), Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types, Amer. J. Mathematics 30, 222-262; reprinted in From Frege to Gödel. A source book in mathematical logic, 1879-1931 (J. van Heijenoort, ed.), 1967, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 150-182.
M. Sheard (1994), A guide to truth predicates in the modern era, J. Symbolic Logic 59, 1032–54.
M. Sheard (2002), Truth, provability, and naive criteria, in Principles of truth
(V. Halbach and L. Horsten, eds.), Dr. Hänsel-Hohenhausen, Frankfurt a.M.,
Stanford CA 94305-2125
Email: sf@csli.stanford.edu
URL: http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman
1 The lecture itself was entitled "Truth unbound"; it has not been published. The elaboration of the new ideas as given here was presented to the Workshop on Mathematical Methods in Philosophy held at the Banff International Research Station (18-23 February 2007) under the title, "A nicer formal theory of non-hierarchical truth". I am indebted to Kentaro Fujimoto, Hannes Leitgeb and Thomas Strahm for their useful comments on earlier drafts of the present article.
2 Gödel seemed to be in accord with this idea in his article, "Russell's mathematical logic" (1944), p.149: "It should be noted that the theory of types brings in a new idea for the solution of the paradoxes, especially suited to their intensional form. It consists in blaming the paradoxes not on the axiom that every propositional function defines a concept or class, but on the assumption that every concept gives a meaningful proposition, if asserted for any arbitrary object or objects as arguments." This is the point of departure for Reinhardt (1986), 221 ff; Reinhardt uses the word 'significant', with predicate symbol S(x), where I use 'determinate meaningfulness' with predicate symbol D(x). The terminology 'determinate meaningfulness' with predicate symbol M(x) is used by McDonald (2000).
3 In broad terms, that was also the program of Reinhardt (1985), leading to a reformulation KS of KF in terms of axioms for significance followed by those for truth.
4 The dot notation with logical symbols in the following serves to indicate the corresponding primitive recursive operations on Gödel numbers; 'num' is the operation that takes a natural number and returns the corresponding numeral in L0. SentL(x) expresses that x is the Gödel number of a sentence of L. Other formalized predicates of metamathematical notions are explained similarly.
5 Condition (e) is analogous to Aczel's (1980) treatment of  in Frege structures; the relation of DT to the defining conditions for Frege structures is explained below.
6 In the discussion following the presentation of this material at the Banff workshop it was argued by both Yiannis Moschovakis and Stewart Shapiro that the condition (e) on D is natural since we don't care whether D(A  B) holds when it is determined that T(A) doesn't hold.
7 Beeson (1985), pp. 410ff, provides an axiomatic version F of Frege structures.
8 Note that the verification of this for all instances of the induction scheme in PA may be provided by a single instance of the induction scheme in PAL.
9 In (F 84) I wrote  A  for v(A).
10 Since writing the above I have been informed by Kentaro Fujimoto that he has found an interpretation of DT in KF, thus confirming the conjectured upper bound. Also, Thomas Strahm assures me that the argument sketched in the text does indeed go through for both the upper and lower bound.
11 But see also Sheard (2002). Another interesting discussion of criteria is to be found in McDonald (2000).
12 Halbach and Horsten (2006) have devised a modification of the system KF to make the outer and inner logic coincide with strong Kleene 3-valued logic.
13 The distinction between outer logic and inner logic has been more or less explicit in critical discussions of formal theories of truth over the years. Reinhardt's work (1986) was a sustained but ultimately unsuccessful effort to resolve the discrepancy.
14 Field (2003) augments strong Kleene logic by a new conditional  for which the law of importation fails; the T-scheme is formulated with the associated biconditional . See the discussion of Field's system near the end of Leitgeb (2007).
15 Reinhardt (1986) also urged an instrumentalist view of such theories, in analogy to Hilbert's program.
16 The work of McDonald (2000) may be considered to be a step in this direction. He provides a semantics for (determinate) meaningfulness and truth in transfinite stages M and T, where the definition of the former at each stage  precedes the definition of the latter; however, M and T are not separated in general.
progress that
specific case
basic notions
reasons given
truth value


text:
Home / Unlabelled / The Pixel 6 Pro now lets you disable a wireless tech you hardly need
The Pixel 6 Pro now lets you disable a wireless tech you hardly need
ITZ January 03, 2022
You can now manage ultra-wideband connections on your Pixel 6 Pro. What you need to know Google has introduced settings toggle for ultra-wideband on the Pixel 6 Pro. The update is part of Google's December 2021 update. UWB allows for more precise positioning, though it works only with devices that have compatible technology. Google has quietly added new settings that allow you to toggle the Pixel 6 Pro's ultra-wideband capability on and off. This feature is part of Google's December 2021 update, though there aren't many use cases for it right now. For starters, UWB allows a device to "identify the relative position of nearby devices" that support this wireless technology. That said, its application on Google's best Android phones is currently limited to the Nearby Share feature, which was upgraded following the December 2021 update. However, due to software bugs, that update is currently on hold. UWB chips also power Google's digital car key feature, which started rolling out ...
http://dlvr.it/SGV3Mr
The Pixel 6 Pro now lets you disable a wireless tech you hardly need Reviewed by ITZ on January 03, 2022 Rating: 5

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Daniel Kawczynski
Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom
Web_site
www.daniel4shrewsbury.co.uk
Seeking Gaddafi
St George's College
University of Stirling
Daniel Kawczynski Life story
Daniel Robert Kawczynski is a British Conservative Party politician and Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury and Atcham in Shropshire, England. The first British MP born in Poland, he was raised in the United Kingdom from the age of seven.
Boris Johnson fights for political survival as Cabinet ministers quit
Jul 6,2022 5:26 am
... Tory backbencher Daniel Kawczynski suggested the resignations would ultimately strengthen Mr Johnson s position, adding they " could have triggered an avalanche against the prime minister but it hasn t"...
Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski suspended for one day over bullying
Jan 19,2022 10:29 pm
...Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski has been given a one-day suspension from sitting in Parliament...
Brexit: UK urged to 'clarify' new offer to the EU fundamental changes
Feb 16,2020 6:52 am
... Meanwhile, Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, he is to Act, taking into account the installation of a private legal challenge for Benn, which marked the Handing over act of his critics has said...
Boris Johnson is fighting for Political Survival after two of his top ministers resigned and attacked his leadership.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Health Secretary Sajid Javid quit within 10 Minutes of each other, followed by a flurry of junior ministers and aides.
Critics said it was " over" for the Prime Minister , while Labour said The Party he led was corrupted.
But Mr Johnson made it clear he planned to stay on as he moved to shore up his government with a cabinet reshuffle.
He named Nadhim Zahawi as the new chancellor, while the Prime Minister 's chief of staff, Steve Barclay , replaced Mr Javid as health secretary.
Mr Johnson - who is facing The Most serious leadership crisis of his premiership So Far - will come under further pressure later on Wednesday as he faces MPs at Prime Minister 's Questions.
He is also due to give evidence to the Liaison Committee later - a group of MPs who scrutinise the government's policy and decisions.
Neither Mr Javid or Mr Sunak have publicly spoken since standing down, but their resignation letters on Tuesday were highly critical of the PM.
Mr Javid warned The Leadership was not " acting in The National interest" while Mr Sunak said The Public expected government to be conducted " properly, competently and seriously".
Opposition party leaders urged cabinet ministers to join the pair and resign, and Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer said he was ready for a snap general election.
Conservative MP and former Chief Whip , Andrew Mitchell , told BBC Newsnight it was " over" for the Mr Johnson , saying " he has neither the character nor the temperament to be our Prime Minister " - and the only question was how long The Affair would Go On .
But no Tory MPs have declared a leadership challenge against the Prime Minister and several ministers have rallied around the PM, including Foreign Secretary Liz Truss - One potential contender to replace him as Tory leader.
She Said she was "100% behind the PM" while cabinet ministers including Dominic Raab , Michael Gove , Therese Coffey and Ben Wallace also indicated they would be staying in the government.
Tory backbencher Daniel Kawczynski suggested the resignations would ultimately strengthen Mr Johnson 's position, adding they " could have triggered an avalanche against the Prime Minister but it hasn't".
PM's future Far from secure
Boris Johnson is braced for more resignations, perhaps not from The Cabinet but The Next rung down the ministerial ladder.
For a little while, after two cabinet resignations, Westminster wondered what might happen Next - and so did the PM.
Not in control of events, he was ringing around the rest of his cabinet to Work Out if they were still with him. They were, and The Moment of greatest jeopardy for him has Passed - for now at least.
A smattering of more junior resignations did follow, but there's a defiance from his team; they point out their mandate from the electorate at The Last election, in contrast with The Anger and anguish among many Conservative MPs.
But what might Rishi Sunak or Sajid Javid say or do Next ?
Discontent on the backbenches, already considerable, is rising further, with some hoping to change Conservative Party rules so the Prime Minister has to face another vote of confidence.
Mr Johnson 's future is Far from secure.
The Political Drama unfolded on Tuesday evening, just minutes after Mr Johnson gave an interview to The Bbc in which he admitted he had made a " bad mistake" in appointing Chris Pincher as deputy Chief Whip in February this year despite being aware of misconduct allegations against him.
It followed days of changing responses from No 10 over what exactly Mr Johnson knew about the allegations facing Mr Pincher when he gave him The Job .
The Row is the latest issue to prompt Conservative MPs to question the Prime Minister 's leadership and direction of government.
Mr Johnson 's government has been dogged by a series of controversies in recent months, not least by a police investigation into parties in Downing Street during lockdown.
Some Tory MPs have also expressed dissent over tax rises, the government's response to rising living costs and its policy direction.
Mr Sunak telling the PM: " In preparation for our proposed joint speech on the economy Next week, it has become clear to me that our approaches are fundamentally too different. "
The departures triggered a wave of resignations by junior Tories, among them Bim Afolami , who quit as vice-chair of The Party live on TV, Solicitor General Alex Chalk , and four ministerial aides.
Pressure on the Prime Minister was also elevated last month by The Loss of by-elections in and and the resignation of Conservative Party chairman Oliver Dowden .
And the resignations of come just weeks after.
The PM is immune from a Conservative leadership challenge Until June Next year under party rules, after he won 59% of the vote.
But Tory rebels opposed to Mr Johnson 's leadership are attempting to force a change in party rules to scrap the year-long gap between formal leadership challenges.
They want to use the upcoming elections to the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs to vote in members who would be willing to change The Rules .
Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen told The Bbc the Prime Minister should resign and if does not do so " The Party will have to force him out".
" The 1922 committee will deal with this turbulent Prime Minister , it's what it was created for, " He Said .
Meanwhile, Labour leader Sir Keir said he would welcome a snap election and the country needed a change of government.
He Said : " After All the sleaze, all the failure, it's clear that this Tory government is now collapsing. "
The Next general election is expected to be held in 2024 but could be earlier if Mr Johnson used his powers to call One .
The leader of the Liberal Democrats , Sir Ed Davey , said the Prime Minister 's " government of chaos has failed our country" and called for him to go.
Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said " the whole rotten lot" in Mr Johnson 's government should go, accusing ministers of " lying to public".
Source of news: bbc.com
Margot James
Former Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries of United Kingdom
Sajid Javid
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of the United Kingdom
Former Minister of State of the United Kingdom for Europe and North America
Charlie Elphicke
David Laws
Former Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom
Member of the Parliament of Great Britain


Terms of a contract might be implied by Custom, Statute or the Courts. There are various Acts which imply terms, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended. It is for example implied in any such sale that the seller has the right to sell the goods. In the case of business sales, it is implied that goods are fit for purpose, namely of merchantable quality. There are other examples where terms are implied. For example, in an employment Contract, it is implied that the employee will work with reasonable care.


A warning to all jocks: if you buy this pillow, the Nerds will have their revenge in your dreams. All that lunch money you purloined will hardly be worth it when this outsized candy comfort object causes carnage comparable only to, well, reality. Imagine an infinite army of the cute, armless Nerds as depicted on the box – only they're slowly chasing you like so many adorably sweet grape and strawberry zombies with a hint of sour tang. This fun little hug-able pillow might just be waiting for you to fall asleep. Made of 91% polyester and 9% spandex and filled with 100% polystyrene beads.


Even the most cautious workers can sometimes experience an accident at work. While jobs requiring physical labor can increase an employee's risk of accident, employees who work in a traditional office setting can also fall victim. Warehouse workers may be hit with falling objects, become injured while driving a forklift, or pull a muscle when lifting inventory. An account manager could get hurt operating office equipment. A restaurant employee might get burned in the kitchen or cut with a culinary knife. Any accident that results from your job is an accident that deserves a speedy recovery.
If an injury is from repetition, it can result in lasting negative physical effects. The nature of an employee's job, especially where repetitive motion is involved, can cause disability. A job where typing or writing is a major part of the description, like an administrative assistant, may lead to such disabilities as carpal tunnel syndrome. Workers who sit for long hours at a time could develop permanent back issues. Knee and other joint ailments often plague stock clerks, who are constantly picking up heavy boxes. The damaging effects of these types of disabilities happen to you over time, and you often need assistance for a long time to come.
Accidents and repetition are not the only way an employee is effected by the work they do. Some workers experience diseases that are related to their job. Spray-foam installers of two-part can get lung and brain damage. Manufacturing workers can be exposed to harmful chemicals or substances. Factory employees might have interrupted sleep patterns or certain vitamin deficiencies from consistently working the night shift. Illnesses can be costly for you to treat, which is why getting the help you need is important.
The Reavis Law Firm is ready to help you. You are our top priority.


Who will you love if not yourself? Other people? How can you love someone for anything but their raw, naked humanity? How can you say you love someone if it is not for their flaws and quirks, snorts and hurts, triggers and tears? Anything else is not love. It is idealization. And, as long as you do it to yourself, you will do it to everyone. You will not love anyone or anything until those eyes in the mirror soften up and embrace the beauty that is already within.
Love is being able to carry each others circumstances and making it your own, even though you didn't play a role in its foundation.
Husbands and wives always loved each other, and that was what marriage meant. It was just so. Janie felt glad of the thought, for then it wouldn't seem so destructive and mouldy. She wouldn't be lonely anymore.
Ego, being love's kryptonite; two souls must be on the same page of humility.
If two people stare at each other for more than a few seconds, it means they are about to either make love or fight. Something similar might be said about human societies. If two nearby societies are in contact for any length of time, they will either trade or fight. The first is non-zero-sum social integration, and the second ultimately brings it.
Beyond work and love, I would add two other ingredients that give meaning to life. First, to fulfill whatever talents we are born with. However blessed we are by fate with different abilities and strengths, we should try to develop them to the fullest, rather than allow them to atrophy and decay. We all know individuals who did not fulfill the promise they showed in childhood. Many of them became haunted by the image of what they might have become. Instead of blaming fate, I think we should accept ourselves as we are and try to fulfill whatever dreams are within our capability.Second, we should try to leave the world a better place than when we entered it. As individuals, we can make a difference, whether it is to probe the secrets of Nature, to clean up the environment and work for peace and social justice, or to nurture the inquisitive, vibrant spirit of the young by being a mentor and a guide.


text:
The Lebanese Zine Dissecting Arab Culture Through Design
Journal Safar is pushing the region's visual boundaries
Amina Kaabi
Just a few years ago, the world declared print dead, and it was all the internet's fault. But over the last few years, shelves at concept stores and a host of independent bookshops have never looked so full. Stacked high with indie magazines, each vying for our attention through subversive subjects that might have never previously piqued our interests.
Both the US and Europe have unequivocally embraced the rise of independent publications in the last decade. The move has taken the publishing industry on an entirely new course, one niche at a time. However, for the Arab world, independent magazines are few and far between. But the good news is, one Beirut-based publication is taking leading by example: Journal Safar. Their niche? Graphic design.
The emerging zine was launched in 2014 and born out of a need to, "above all, seeking to give agency to graphic design as a field that plays an integral, important role in cultural production" as its co-founder, Maya Moumne puts it.
Published in both English and Arabic (an intentional move by its founders as a way to reach a wider Arab audience), Journal Safar digs deep into the visual languages of the Middle East. Now on their fourth issue, they approach each issues with a set theme in mind, with nostalgia being their latest.
But their method is straightforward. For each issue, its founders and editors (Maya Moumne and Hatem Imam) divise a theme, invite designers, writers, thinkers and creatives to respond, with their collective contributions and varying perspectives making up their biannual issues, which are then inaugurated with a series of talks.
For their third issue, the notions of nationality and travel restrictions were front and centre, with creative director Ahmad Gharbieh exploring the topic through the deconstruction of passport design.
For their new issue, the idea of 'Nostlagia' was dissected and explored by cultural critic and former director of the New York Public Library Paul Holdengraber in an interview with the legendary Ru Paul, photographs of Maurizio Cattelan and Lebanese drag queens, photographs of Palestine from the National Geographic Society's archives, and a conversation with the designer behind David Bowie's most iconic albums.
"[We] wanted to give other designers the chance to talk about nostalgia, the pros and cons of it; mostly the cons of it," Maya Moumne told local Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar.
And the magazine doesn't shy away from what could be viewed as taboo in the region. With last month's release coinciding with Pride, the issue wasn't short of LGBTQI+ content. Lebanese drag queen Anya Kneez (who moved back to Lebanon from the US in 2012 and has become an advocate for Arab queerness) was invited to be part of their launch party panel, opening up the debate on drag as an art form in the Middle East.
For their next issue, Journal Safar is looking to explore graphic design through the concept of migration—and we can't wait to see what they have in store.
الثقافة العربية
فيديو رقص ويل سميث على موسيقى الشعبي في حفل زفاف مغربي: هكدا كانت ردود فعل المعجبين
لنعرفكم على تاريخ مشروب العَرَق


text:
Mickalene Thomas: I Can't See You Without Me at Wexner Center for the Arts
The work of celebrated, multidisciplinary artist Mickalene Thomas (b. 1971) fills our galleries in this new exhibition that explores her vibrant and resonant dialogue with authorship, identity, desire, and the historically charged relationship between artist and muse. You'll encounter more than 50 of Thomas's works, including her signature rhinestone-encrusted paintings as well as collages, sculptures, immersive installations, and the premiere of a multichannel video set to music by Grammy Award–winning drummer, composer, and producer Terri Lyne Carrington. This new work, Je t'aime trois, has been made possible by a Wexner Center Artist Residency Award. The collaborators will also perform entrepe, a live piece inspired by the project, on October 4.
Free for members of the Wexner Center for the Arts, college students (with valid ID), patrons under 18, active military and veterans.
$8 general public
$6 senior citizens (65 and older)
$6 Ohio State faculty and staff (with BuckID)
All visitors are admitted to the exhibitions for free on Thursdays after 4 PM and on the first Sunday of each month; admission is also free with a ticket to any same-day Wexner Center event. The exhibition is closed on Mondays.
Wexner Center for the Arts
1871 N High St. - Columbus


The endota spa story began in 2000. The first day spa on Victoria's Mornington Peninsula paved the way for wellbeing to be considered a priority rather than a treat.
As part of a Mother's Day campaign endota spa ran a competition through a Facebook app. I was the primary designer on this project and was responsible for designing the user flow, wireframes, layout and visual design ensuring this adhered to the endota spa style guidelines. To make sure the design would be feasible I liaised with a developer throughout the design process.
To promote the launch of their new Organics product and skincare range endota spa ran a marketing campaign across print and digital. I art directed the photoshoot for the new range and worked across the design of digital and print marketing, in-spa collaterals, packaging for gift packs and boxes.


Further rounds of negotiations took place on Friday as delegates met in contact groups and for informal consultations on a wide range of agenda items. There are 6 different negotiating tracks meeting and there are 55 separate issues under discussion. As a result, it's reported that many delegates are having a hard time keeping track of all the issues and having their texts ready by Saturday so the high-level ministers who will start to arrive early next week can take them up.
News from the US delegation, Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing spoke of positive outcomes at Cancun, and urged that all major economies be included in a 2nd commitment period. He further stated that parties should recognize that we need a new mitigation and adaptation regime that reflects the current global economic situation rather than using architecture that was designed in 1992 or 1997 when Kyoto was first adopted.
Signing off for the weekend! Check back next week for more Dispatches From Durban.


Cumberland Elementary School is a P-5 school in District 62, and is located at 700 E Golf Road in Des Plaines, IL.
We've helped 27 families buy and sell in Des Plaines.
The HomesByMarco team are experts in the area. If you're looking to buy a home in Des Plaines, give us a call today at 888-32-MARCO.
Cumberland Elementary School home sales for the month of March rose in volume by 300% when compared to last year, while the median sale price rose by 18.5% from $285,000 to $337,645. The number of Single Family homes sales rose by 100%, while the median sale price rose by 43.3% from $285,000 to $408,500. Condo/townhome sales stayed the same, while the median sale price stayed the same.


6 Nov Discover our 20 picks for the best and absolutely free dating sites You should consider each option with an open mind. POF was among the first online dating sites and as such, they have been able to channels that the site offers including text, audio and video chat. . February 15, at am.
Description:Many singles who experiment with online dating, via desktop or mobile app, start off on free online dating sites. Free sites give you a chance to experience all that online dating has to offer and allows you to see how you stack up in the digital dating world, which, yes, is different from the in-person meeting route. Digital dating has come a long way in a short period of time and the presence of legitimate, useful free dating sites and apps just further proves this point. Look back just a decade ago and your options for online dating were much, much slimmer. Online dating sites that were free back then were often either highly sketchy, putting your identity and privacy at risk, or simply did not have the membership numbers to give you a worthwhile online dating experience.


This is 2011 Royal Enfield Electra came to EIMOR Customs from Assam. The owner of this bike serves in the Indian Army. It was a matter of pride and a privilege to be able to serve anyone from the Indian Defence Forces. Eimor Customs' client wanted to give his bike a minimal yet aesthetically sound makeover. And like any defence personal he is very much emotionally attached and proud about his battalion, which is "Bombay Engineer Group" or "The Bombay Sappers" a battalion which has huge historical importance since 1780. The list of battle honours is long; this battalion has also received all the three highest gallantry awards ~ Pre-Independence [Victoria Cross] & Post-Independence [Param Vir Chakra (highest military decoration awarded for valour during wartime) & Ashok Chakra (highest peacetime military decoration awarded for valour)].
Eimor Customs focussed on making the bike peppier and sporty. The wheels are sleeker with a 19" and 15" combination. That existing tank was customised with thigh pads matching the seat upholstery, and the tank cap shifted to one side, is made of brass and bears the signature of the client himself. The handlebar end weights are also made of brass and bear the company branding. The headlight, the taillight and indicators have been changed to LED. The paint job is simple yet interesting. The tank and the two mudguards are having olive green camouflage with a rugged and worn out texture. The logos and insignias and shlokas from Bhagwat Gita (Chapter 2 Verse 37) is done with golden and fluorescent green luminescent paint. The rest of the bike is painted in matte black. The seat is made in brown to complement the look. The handle grips are decorated with leather strips.
Eimor Customs have named the bike Parantapa. It is one of the twelve names of Arjuna, which means one who destroys the enemy with his power of concentration. And this is their tribute to one of the oldest battalions of the Indian Army.


text:
layout: page
title: About Me
permalink: /about/
tags: about
---

I like Javascript, React, Elm, and learning about FP!
Dev in Toronto, Canada

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Our huge range of sealable trays are suitable for busy takeaways of all sizes. Strong, durable and leak-proof there not only a great for you, their chilling, freezing and microwave qualities make them a winner with your customers also.
Place the order in one of our great range of trays.
Roll on our film seal using one of our convenient sealing machines.
Stack and dispatch the strong, no-leak trays.
Pay with PayPal or all major cards with our easy online ordering process and great prices.
*Free delivery on all deliveries (excluding areas outside UK Mainland). Please allow 1-2 days for delivery from date of order. This will need to be signed for on delivery.
For orders outside of the UK mainland, please call +44 1256 844700.
RPC Bebo Food Packaging is part of the RPC Group – a leading plastic product design and engineering company with over 194 operations in 34 countries.
The RPC Group is commitment to sustainability and by using our products we can help your business achieve it's own environmental goals. Our Takeaway Systems trays are made from one of the most environmental friendly plastics available today and can be 100% recycled.
More about sustainability at the RPC Group.


text:
Ottawa splits Indigenous Affairs into two departments
By APTN National News
The PMO said the split is the "next step" to doing away with the Indian Act.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau split Indigenous and Northern Affairs into two departments and named a second minister.
The two departments of Indigenous Affairs will have one side focusing on a new relationship with Indigenous people, such as First Nations working on self-government agreements, and the other will continue providing services for all First Nations.
Minister Carolyn Bennett will lead the new department becoming the minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, former Health Minister Jane Philpott will becomes the minister of Indigenous Services.
Bennett was minister of Indigenous Affairs since Trudeau's government took power in 2015.
The Prime Minister's Office said in a press release the change was needed because the "level of the ambition of this government cannot be achieved through existing colonial structures."
The PMO said the split is the "next step" to doing away with the Indian Act and dissolve the current Indigenous and Northern Affairs department.
The eventual creation of two separate ministries to replace the existing department will involve legislation, Trudeau said, noting Bennett's work over the last two years has brought his government to the point where it can explore changes.
"There is a sense that we have pushed the creaky old structures around INAC (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) about as far as they can go," Trudeau said as he stood outside Rideau Hall, the Governor General's residence.
"Being able to have ministers like Carolyn and Jane in charge of moving forward in substantive ways that will demonstrate Canadians' commitment to reconciliation is something that is very exciting."
The federal government is also taking steps to move beyond the Indian Act, Trudeau added, pointing to a 141-year old statute that has been widely criticized by Indigenous leaders.
"It is a story that is about decolonizing," Bennett said Monday. "It is about getting rid of the paternalism and being able to understand that we have to move to a new way of working together. It is … about us stopping delivering government programs and begin to build Indigenous-led institutions and Indigenous-led governments."
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde called Trudeau's announcement Monday a "positive step" for Indigenous People and their relationship with the Crown, saying the decision will allow communities to exert their jurisdiction over territories and rights.
He also said he hopes the bureaucracy will be able to find new ways of doing business now that Philpott will take over this aspect of the file.
"We've always said the bureaucracy is really colonial and outdated and everything is done the same old way," he said in an interview.
"I believe this government is listening and they've reacted in restructuring in such a manner that I think it is going to have impact for our people … I would say it should allow for greater progress."
Metis National Council President Clement Chartier also praised the federal government on Monday, saying he was alerted of the decision personally in a Monday morning phone call from the prime minister.
"You have two, I believe, well-placed ministers that are serious about what they've been tasked with," he said. "I think in this way, progress can, in fact, be made. I think it is a proactive, positive step that the government is taking."
NDP Indigenous affairs critic Romeo Saganash interpreted the announcement differently, saying that splitting the Indigenous-related files is an "acknowledgment that the Liberal government has so far failed to comprehensively address the formidable challenges Indigenous communities face."
"The long-standing injustices cannot be addressed by any symbolic change and I reiterate the NDP's call on the Liberal government to comply with legal orders to end discrimination of First Nations kids," he said in a statement.
The Conservatives declined to comment on the cabinet shuffle for Indigenous Affairs.
Tags: Featured, Indian Act, Indigenous Affairs, Ontario, Ottawa
'It was satire' says former judge who penned controversial column in...
Indigenous youth find hidden talent in robotic program
7 thoughts on "Ottawa splits Indigenous Affairs into two departments"
Nancy E Wilson says:
Please provide the indigenous peoples with safe, clean water, a secure food supply, well built & maintained schools, clinics, community centres, other infrastructure & homes. Give them the education, training & resources they need to implement these improvements themselves. And support them as communities & as individuals, regardless of age, gender or creed, in achieving productivity & independence with dignity. Whether this is done with one, two or a thousand ministries is unimportant. Just do it & do it now!
Who's best interest is the government looking out for – themselves, Indigenous people or the Crown – 150 years and all of a sudden they are are willing to do things in the best interest of indigenous people – I don't think so and our indigenous leaders shouldn't think so either – In the grand scheme of things it's just another move to take of Canada's Indian problem – I ask you this – why do sovern nations have to ask and get the approval of a foreign government on how they should and will govern themselves…why are treaties that are being settled have to have the word "surrendered" in it – it's because that foreign government (Canada) is only looking out for its best interest and not what's best for its indigenous people of turtle island
Nothing on how they the Canadian gov will address treaty's
And the sharing of the GNPfifty percent of which belongs to all native ppl and the return of all crown lands held in trust for native ppl or they can leave now
terance johnson says:
process to self government and rely on the tribes to take care of the tribe with out the Canadian government. getting to involved in tribal affairs.
W' dae b' wae says:
They say that breaking up is hard to do.
Now I know I know that it's true
Please just say that this is the end
The end of the Indian Act
So instead of just breaking up INAC
We are truly making strong independent self governing First Nations.
Jas ben says:
Instead of splitting it into two….it should be reduced to a financial oversight agency with all of the department's other duties going directly to the AFN…….
D. Williams says:
That will make it easier? For whom?
10 hours ago By Kenneth Jackson | Josh Grummett


DEN Lab welcomes two new members in Spring 2019 | Welcome to the D.E.N.
Two new members just joined the pack! DEN Lab welcomes Francesca Scheiber and Maria Carriel. Francesca (Chessie) is a graduate student in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Clinical Psychology program. Maria is a sophomore pursuing a Neuroscience major on the Pre-Medicine track. Welcome Chessie and Maria!


Drug laws in Georgia are some of the strictest in the country. And because of reasons we'll explain in this article, heroin possession carries the strictest penalties of any drug laws in the state.
In fact, heroin possession in Georgia can bring serious jail time even if caught with a small amount. If you're using heroin, learn more about heroin addiction treatment in Georgia.
No matter what, if you or a loved one is concerned about getting in trouble with the law due to heroin possession, you should contact a lawyer immediately. Only with the guidance of an experienced lawyer will you be able to make the best decisions given the specifics of your case.
However, we have put together this article to give you some information and some insight into how heroin possession laws are structured in Georgia and what to expect if you or a loved one gets busted.
What heroin is and why it's so dangerous.
Possession laws of heroin in Georgia.
Penalties for being caught with heroin.
How much heroin you need to get caught with for it to be considered trafficking.
Whether or not getting caught means you'll go to prison.
Again, it's important to remember that this article is meant to serve as a guide, not as legal advice. Please, contact a lawyer before making any legal decisions.
In addition, call one of our recovery specialists at (678) 671-3932 to learn how to get on the road to recovery today.
Though many of you likely know, some of you may be wondering what exactly is heroin?
Heroin is derived from certain varieties of poppy plants and is usually found as a white or brownish powder.
Almost all the heroin sold in America has been "cut", meaning it's been processed with additives so dealers can make more money.
Sometimes these cuts are relatively harmless, such as sugars or starch, while other times the cuts can be extremely toxic and even fatal, such as fentanyl.
Pure heroin comes as a white, bitter-tasting powder. If heroin is relatively pure, it can be smoked or snorted. This is often times more appealing to new users, as smoking and snorting is a relatively easy way of taking the drug.
However, another type of heroin is often called "black tar". This is because this type of heroin is sticky and black, sort of like roofing tar. Other types of impure heroin can be black and hard like coal.
Either way, this impure form of heroin is usually dissolved, diluted, and injected into the veins. This is by far the most dangerous way to use heroin, due to the risk of overdose. In addition, many users will share needles, increasing their risk of contracting dangerous infectious diseases.
The reason for the color and consistency of "black tar" heroin is the impurities left behind due to the crude extraction and processing methods. This is another reason heroin is so dangerous. Different batches will have different strengths, potencies, purities, and cuts, resulting in wildly different psychological and physiological effects.
Generally speaking, the type of heroin a person gets caught with won't influence their sentencing.
The reason heroin is considered to be so dangerous is because of it's highly addictive nature and it's potential for complications such as overdose.
There are many factors that increase a users risk, some of which we covered above. It's also important to remember that just because someone gets addicted to heroin doesn't mean they're bad, or lazy, or evil.
In fact, many heroin users end up taking heroin after being prescribed prescription opiates first. In fact, research suggests that the misuse of prescription opiates (such as OxyContin and Vicodin) is the leading cause of heroin addiction.
Still, the simple fact remains: Heroin is dangerous because it often leads to addiction and overdose, and can pose huge risks for all users, especially pregnant women.
To learn more, visit Heroin and Pregnancy and Drug Treatment for Pregnant Women.
As we mentioned, drug possession laws in Georgia are some of the harshest in the country, with heroin being penalized the most.
The reason for this is that heroin is commonly recognized as one of the most dangerous street drugs. In fact, with the recent uprise of opiate addiction, heroin may be the most dangerous illicit drug.
However, it's important to understand heroin laws and what they mean for one who gets caught possessing heroin.
First off, many people wonder what possession actually is. For example, some may think that you have to have heroin in your pocket or in some way on your person for it to count as possession.
In most cases, this isn't true. It's enough to just have heroin in your car or house, as long as the police can prove that the drug was in your control.
This means that if you're driving with a friend and they have heroin, you could be held liable. That's why it's always better to not start a heroin habit and avoid contact with those who use heroin. It's not worth the risk of going to jail.
It's also important to note the difference between possession and trafficking. Possession is considered possessing a drug for personal, recreational use.
Trafficking, on the other hand, is when a person possesses a drug with the intent to sell. You may think that as long as you don't have the intent to sell you'll only get in trouble for possession.
With most drugs, this is the case. With heroin, however, it's just not true.
In fact, if someone is caught with just four grams of heroin, they can be convicted of trafficking (check the section below to see the penalties for trafficking), even if they didn't intend to sell the drug.
For perspective, to be convicted of trafficking in Georgia for cocaine or methamphetamine, you need 28 grams or more. That's four times the trafficking amount for heroin.
Whether convicted of possession or trafficking, getting in trouble for heroin will almost certainly be a felony. In the next section, we'll cover the specific penalties for heroin depending on the amount you're caught with.
In the section after that, we'll discuss if getting caught with heroin ensures you'll be placed in prison.
As we mentioned above, the severity of your penalties will be based on how much of the drug you possessed and the intent you possessed it with.
For example, if you're caught with under a gram of heroin, you'll be facing 1-3 years in prison or on probation. Of course, the penalty will depend on the judge you get and the extent of your criminal history.
For those with no criminal history, they may be asked to attend a drug treatment center instead of prison. Again, talk to a lawyer for more details on the specifics of your case.
If you're caught with between 1-4 grams of heroin, you'll be facing 1-8 years of prison or probation. Of course, if the police have cause to believe you were possessing the heroin to sell, they can up the charge to include trafficking, which holds with it a much longer minimum sentencing.
If you're caught with between 4-14 grams, you can face 5-15 years of prison or probation and $50,000+ in fines. More than 14 grams, you can be facing some serious time. In fact, 4-14 grams has a mandatory 10-year sentence and a $100,000 fine.
While over 28 grams carries with it a mandatory 25-year sentence and half a million dollars in fines.
Less than a gram: 1-3 years of prison or probation.
1-4 grams: 1-8 years of prison or probation.
4-14 grams: Mandatory 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
14-28 grams: Mandatory 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.
28+ grams: Mandatory 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
Again, the reason these penalties are so harsh is because of the extremely addictive and dangerous potentials of heroin. You don't have to watch the news for long to learn about an overdose from heroin or a similar opiate.
But jail time isn't the only penalty those convicted of heroin possession will face. In fact, in Georgia, those convicted of drug possession can lose their driver's license and all driving privileges.
For your first offense, you'll lose your license for six months. For a second offense, it's a full year. That can be a major hassle for those with a commute to work.
If you get busted more than twice for heroin or other drug possession, you could lose driving privileges for even longer.
Again, an experienced lawyer will be able to give you the details on penalties and how to defend yourself depending on the specifics of the case.
So, you may be scared with all the harsh laws and years of life you can lose behind bars. But, just because you're convicted of heroin possession doesn't necessarily mean you'll spend any time in the joint.
Continue reading to learn more in the next section.
Does That Mean I'm Going to Prison?
The short answer to that is: it depends.
The long answer to that is: talk to a lawyer.
However, we can say with some certainty that not everyone convicted of heroin possession will face jail time. If you're caught with a large amount (meaning you're convicted of trafficking alongside possession) or if you have a criminal history, jail time is almost certainly in your future.
However, for young people without a criminal history, judges may understand that jail time isn't necessarily the right cure for addiction.
In these cases, a judge may send the case to drug court. Drug court, just like regular court, allows for the resolution of criminal charges.
However, drug court also holds defendants responsible for their sobriety. This means that drug court has more of an emphasis on rehabilitating defendants, instead of just punishing them.
Often when a case goes to drug court, there are some stipulations, for example, taking regular drug tests. Failing to follow through on the stipulations (such as not showing up for the drug screening), failing a drug test, or being convicted of a separate criminal offense is usually enough for the case to go back to regular court, meaning you're more likely to spend time in jail.
In addition, those under the age of 18 may be able to be tried as a juvenile. Again, this will depend on the specifics of the case, such as the age of the defendant and their criminal history.
Any cases tried in juvenile court will end up in a juvenile detention center instead of prison.
If it's your child who was convicted of heroin possession, we recommend finding a lawyer experienced in handling juvenile drug cases. They'll know how best to proceed.
Facing a drug charge is never fun, but with the right support system by your side, you'll get through it.
In addition, going through withdrawals while fighting a drug charge is even harder. That's why we recommend contacting one of our recovery specialists today.
In fact, if the court knows you've reached out in an attempt to beat your addiction, they may see it as a good faith attempt to get better. In other words, they may lessen your charge.
Again, call your lawyer before making any legal decisions. Only they will know what to do depending on the specifics of your case.
In addition, call our confidential recovery specialists at (678) 671-3929 to get insight into how to beat the addiction your or a loved one is facing.


Shale oil is 'reshaping the commercial energy industry' according to a statement released by the International Energy Agency on Tuesday.
The North American shale energy industry has created a 'supply shock' according to Maria van der Hoeven, IEA executive director, that could have decade-long repercussions. The agency said that US shale oil will help meet most of the the world's demands over the next 5 years, even allowing for a drastic upturn in usage should the economy recover.
van der Hoeven described the boost in shale oil stock from the US as a "game changer" for the global commercial energy industry, given the fall in production from some middle eastern countries more commonly associated with the export of crude oil.
Looking back to November, the IEA predicted the US would become the world's biggest producer of oil by 2017, however that could be met within the next three years thanks to a the 'steeper than expected' growth of shale oil production.
Not only that, but shale oil could allow the US to change from being the world's biggest importer of oil into an exporter in that time frame.
Additionally, shale energy industry has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of jobs across it's span, as well as bring in billions in revenue – something that could very well change the landscape of the economic road-map to recovery for North America.
Environmental groups, however, will be concerned over the controversial process used to access the raw oil. Known as 'fracking', has been suspected of causing earthquakes and has been proven to cause lasting environmental damage.
Whilst the shale oil industry could secure the short-term oil market for the US, as well as almost single handily allow recovery out of the financial crisis, the franking process behind shale oil could prove to be a somewhat Faustian bargain for North America.


Nitrogen fertilizers enable farmers to achieve the high yields that drive modern agriculture. The use of nitrogen fertilizer will continue to increase substantially as global population and food requirements grow. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) forecasts suggest that under current conditions nitrogen fertilizer applications will total nearly 100 million tons per year by 2010-11.
While fertilizers are effective in driving crop yield improvements, they also frequently have a negative impact on the environment. Since most plants are able to utilize less than one-half of the nitrogen fertilizer applied by growers, much of the remaining nitrogen fertilizer leaches into the air, soil and water and pollutes lakes, rivers, aquifers and oceans.
A significant portion of the unabsorbed nitrogen fertilizer volatizes in the form of N2O. In fact, agriculture is the second largest industrial contributor to global greenhouse gases (GHGs) -- ahead of the transportation sector and behind only electrical and heat generation. It is estimated that nitrogen fertilizer accounts for one-third of the GHGs produced by agriculture (Stern Review 2006).
One of the most visible examples of the harmful environmental effects of nitrogen fertilizers is the creation of "dead zones" in the world's oceans. Dead zones result from the death and decomposition of massive algae blooms that are fed by excessive nutrient runoff. When algae populations get too large, they die and their natural decomposition depletes the water of oxygen. This creates a condition called "hypoxia" and results in suffocation and death of fish species.
A 2004 United Nations Environment Programme report identified dead zones as one of the most significant global environmental threats facing the world. According to the report there are more than 146 dead zones around the world that range in size from between one square kilometer to more than 70,000 square kilometers.


text:
Public Forum >
SFPE Example 2 Annie 6 6056 February 05, 2009, 09:02:35 am
by Charlie Thornton
Cannot Visualize 3D Results Annie 6 6399 February 13, 2009, 04:03:49 pm
Nothing Happens abmvd7 2 3912 February 16, 2009, 09:08:52 am
by abmvd7
Sloped Seating abmvd7 4 5048 February 24, 2009, 10:25:56 am
by johnni
SFPE mode and steering mode liu_zhen 1 5127 February 26, 2009, 10:12:24 am
Setting occupants with user-defined avatars ? kwail 1 3464 March 02, 2009, 08:33:43 am
One occupant made an instant movement and then got stuck liu_zhen 6 5544 March 05, 2009, 09:26:12 am
Some questions about the steering mode liu_zhen 1 3646 March 06, 2009, 08:57:50 am
Pathfinder mailing list Charlie Thornton 7 7610 March 06, 2009, 11:56:25 am
Download Link Broken... Charlie Thornton 1 3414 March 10, 2009, 09:43:23 am
Occupant profile liu_zhen 1 3768 March 16, 2009, 07:44:12 am
Exit disabled at a user-defined time kwail 1 4349 March 24, 2009, 04:04:59 pm
Simulation parameter: steering update interval liu_zhen 1 3385 March 25, 2009, 08:01:00 am
KSU Stadium: 36,201 occupants Charlie Thornton 1 3732 March 25, 2009, 08:24:10 am
License expired liu_zhen 1 3345 April 01, 2009, 07:48:03 am
Agents can not show as people Huajin 2 3975 April 09, 2009, 03:28:07 pm
by Huajin
Pathfinder 2009 Released! Charlie Thornton 0 3258 April 21, 2009, 07:52:12 am
How to get License of May? Huajin 1 4084 May 05, 2009, 07:51:25 am
Create movie... andrea 11 11902 July 01, 2009, 09:13:07 am
NEW Pathfinder evacuation simulator and PyroSim summer sale Charlie Thornton 0 7935 July 07, 2009, 10:07:40 am