DOCSLIB.ORG

Higher Dimensional Trichotomy Conjectures in Model Theory By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Higher Dimensional Trichotomy Conjectures in Model Theory By Higher Dimensional Trichotomy Conjectures in Model Theory by Benjamin Castle A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Thomas Scanlon, Chair Associate Professor Pierre Simon Associate Professor Adityanand Guntuboyina Spring 2021 Higher Dimensional Trichotomy Conjectures in Model Theory Copyright 2021 by Benjamin Castle 1 Abstract Higher Dimensional Trichotomy Conjectures in Model Theory by Benjamin Castle Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor Thomas Scanlon, Chair In this thesis we study the Restricted Trichotomy Conjectures for algebraically closed and o-minimal fields. These conjectures predict a classification of all sufficiently complex, that is, non-locally modular, strongly minimal structures which can be interpreted from such fields. Such problems have been historically divided into `lower dimensional' and `higher dimen- sional' cases; this thesis is devoted to a number of partial results in the higher dimensional cases. In particular, in ACF0 and over o-minimal fields, we prove that all higher dimensional strongly minimal structures whose definable sets satisfy certain geometric restrictions are locally modular. We also make progress toward verifying these geometric restrictions in any counterexample. Finally, in the last chapter we give a full proof of local modularity for strongly minimal expansions of higher dimensional groups in ACF0. i To Katrina and Justin ii Contents Contents ii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Historical Background . 1 1.2 The Challenge of Working in Higher Dimensions . 3 1.3 Outline of Results . 5 2 Preliminaries on Strongly Minimal Sets 7 2.1 Strong Minimality and Dimension . 7 2.2 Pregeometries and Local Modularity . 13 2.3 Plane Curves . 20 2.4 Trichotomy Conjectures and Our Setting . 26 3 First Observations and Almost Purity 29 3.1 Dimension and Genericity . 29 3.2 Pure Parts of Sets . 35 3.3 Almost Purity and Almost Closedness . 38 3.4 Relation to Covering Maps . 40 4 Finite Fundamental Groups and Unimodularity 46 4.1 Review of Unimodularity . 47 4.2 Proof I: Reducing to Unimodularity . 51 4.3 Proof II: Producing a Pairwise Disjoint Family . 57 4.4 A Non-Unimodular Example with Trivial Geometry . 67 5 The General Case of Smooth Varieties 73 5.1 Algebro-Geometric Preliminaries . 74 5.2 Relative Almost Purity . 76 5.3 Relative Almost Purity of the Fiber Product of a Family . 78 5.4 Proof of the Main Theorem . 84 5.5 Interpreting a Group . 89 6 Unimodularity Revisited: An O-minimal Variant 95 iii 6.1 O-Minimality: Review of Basic Definitions and Facts . 96 6.2 Some Algebraic Topology . 99 6.3 Our Setting . 105 6.4 Dimension and Genericity . 106 6.5 Geometric Preliminaries . 108 6.6 Almost Purity . 112 6.7 Coverings . 113 6.8 Components . 117 6.9 The Main Theorem . 125 7 Toward Guaranteeing Almost Purity 128 7.1 Common and Semi-indistinguishable Points . 129 7.2 Sweeping Sets . 135 7.3 Generic Almost Closedness . 138 7.4 Frontiers of Plane Curves in General . 150 7.5 Toward Showing Almost Closedness Implies Almost Purity . 155 8 The Case of Groups 174 8.1 Standard Reductions . 175 8.2 Almost Closedness and Abelian Varieties . 179 8.3 Frontiers of Generic 2-Hypersurfaces . 179 8.4 Frontiers of Arbitrary 2-Hypersurfaces . 193 8.5 Poles . 196 8.6 The Main Theorem . 199 Bibliography 201 iv Acknowledgments I would first like to thank my advisor, Tom Scanlon, for mentoring me throughout my time at Berkeley. I feel very lucky to have been one of his students, and this thesis would not have been possible without his endless patience, support, and mathematical wisdom. I also thank the other members of the committee, Pierre Simon and Adityanand Gun- tuboyina, for their time and effort. I especially thank Pierre for his contributions to the model theory group at Berkeley, including running our seminar. Similarly, I am thankful to Carol Wood and Ward Henson for their presence in the Berkeley logic community. This thesis was inspired by the work of too many mathematicians to name. However, I would like to mention Assaf Hasson and Dmitry Sustretov, whose ideas formed the starting point for this project; and especially Assaf, for a number of helpful conversations on the material. Next, I thank all of my peers within the logic community at Berkeley, for making graduate school a fun and memorable experience. These include, but are by no means limited to, fellow model theorists Nick Ramsey, Reid Dale, Mariana Vicaria, Adele Padgett, David Casey, Diego Bejarano Rayo, Scott Mutchnik, and Sebastian Eterovi´c. I also thank my former housemates, Ian Gleason, Ravi Fernando, and Patrick Lutz, for a myriad of stimulating conversations, both within and outside of mathematics; I enjoyed developing friendships with each of them during my time at Berkeley. I especially thank Ravi for patiently fielding a number of probably silly questions from a model theorist trying to do algebraic geometry; and Ian for being my best friend for the last six years. Thank you as well to all those who mentored me mathematically before my Berkeley years: in particular, Adrienne Stanley, Douglas Mupasiri, and TJ Hitchman, my undergraduate professors; P´eterJuh´asz,my teacher, mentor, and friend from my time in Budapest; and Brian Reynolds, my high school math coach. Last but not least, I thank my entire family { in particular my parents, and my brother Tommy { for their unwavering support. My parents recognized my love of math early on, and I wouldn't have made it to this point without their constant encouragement. I especially thank my wife, Katrina, for supporting me in so many ways, and helping me to stay sane during these last few months of writing. And finally, I thank my five month old son, Justin. Much of this thesis was typed with him sitting or sleeping in my lap; and even though he did everything he could to keep me fully distracted the whole time, having him around truly makes pushing through the hardest moments worth it. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Historical Background The class of strongly minimal sets has long been of importance to Model Theory, originating in 1971 with its use in Baldwin and Lachlan's treatment of Morley's Categoricity Theorem [2]. The study of such sets, however, found a new and exciting avenue in the work of Boris Zilber in the 1970s and 1980s, which proposed a classification according to familiar algebraic objects. Zilber (see, for example, [53] and [54]) established a trichotomy which divided strongly minimal sets according to the complexity of their induced strongly minimal structures. He proceeded to classify those of `middle' complexity { the non-trivial locally modular sets { as those whose `geometries' arise from linear algebra over division rings (a more precise form of this identification was given later by Hrushovski [23] { see Fact 2.4.2 of this thesis). Following this line of thought, Zilber conjectured that the most complex level { the non-locally modular strongly minimal sets { should be classifiable as those arising from algebraic geometry over algebraically closed fields. Precisely, he showed that non-locally modular strongly minimal sets are exactly those which contain certain combinatorial objects called `pseudoplanes' (see [53], Theorem 3.1 or [54], Chapter II, Theorem 3.5); he then conjectured the following (see [53], Conjecture B): Conjecture 1.1.1 (Zilber's Trichotomy Conjecture). Every uncountably categorical pseu- doplane is mutually interpretable with an algebraically closed field. In particular, every non- locally modular strongly minimal set interprets an algebraically closed field. This conjecture has an enticing flavor: indeed, it would suggest that algebraically closed fields are characterizable (up to mutual interpretability) according to purely model theoretic principles. Alas, Zilber's conjecture turned out to be false, as proven in 1993 by Ehud Hrushovski [21]: Theorem 1.1.2 (Hrushovski Construction). There is a strongly minimal set which is not locally modular and does not interpret any infinite group, thus in particular cannot interpret an algebraically closed field. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2 Nevertheless, Zilber's original prediction has retained significant importance to model theory { in particular, by guiding much of the development of geometric stability theory over the last 35 years. Since Hrushovski's refutation of Zilber's original conjecture, model theorists have proceeded to discover a multitude of instances in which similar trichotomy phenomena do hold. These instances include, for example: strongly minimal sets definable in differentially closed fields (see [26] and [41]). strongly minimal sets which carry a `Zariski-like' topology [27]. o-minimal structures viewed locally near a point [34]. In each of the above examples, a classification is achieved along Zilber's original lines, dividing the specified objects into the `trivial,' `vector space,' and ‘field’ cases. Thus it has long been apparent that various geometric situations in Model Theory witness the same surprising pattern: the emergence `out of thin air' of the same familiar algebraic objects (vector spaces and fields). The common guiding principle which fuels these classification results is the presence of an underlying geometry on definable sets. For example, one may choose to work only with definable sets that are `closed' in a meaningful sense. A more difficult challenge, then, is to establish trichotomy phenomena without such an available notion of geometry. Of course, as noted above, the trichotomy fails in full generality even for strongly minimal sets. However, an interesting `in between' question is to ask about structures for which (i) there is a geometry controlling the definable sets, but (ii) that geometry can only be seen from a certain `outside' object, not necessarily definable from the structure itself.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Trichotomy of Processes: a Philosophical Basis for Information Systems
    Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS 2003 Proceedings (AMCIS) December 2003 The rT ichotomy of Processes: A Philosophical Basis for Information Systems George Widmeyer University of Michigan Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003 Recommended Citation Widmeyer, George, "The rT ichotomy of Processes: A Philosophical Basis for Information Systems" (2003). AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. 362. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/362 This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2003 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRICHOTOMY OF PROCESSES: A PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS George R. Widmeyer University of Michigan [email protected] Abstract The principle of trichotomy from the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce can be used to categorize processes into the triad of transactional, informational, and relational. The usefulness of these categories is explicated by a comparison with structuration theory and control theory, and elaborated with a consideration of democracy in a knowledge economy. These three example applications of the process triad show the generality of the conceptual categories and provide a natural way of bringing ideas from social and ethical theories into information systems design. Modeling the world and understanding business applications through the use of the Trichotomy of Processes should facilitate the development of more valuable information systems. Keywords: Business processes, information systems theory, conceptual modeling, ontology, Peirce, open society Introduction Various frameworks for understanding the business processes of an organization have been proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on Recognizing Our Duties As God's Commands
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 17 Issue 4 Article 3 10-1-2000 Kant on Recognizing our Duties as God's Commands John Hare Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Hare, John (2000) "Kant on Recognizing our Duties as God's Commands," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 17 : Iss. 4 , Article 3. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol17/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. KANT ON RECOGNIZING OUR DUTIES AS GOD'S COMMANDS John E. Hare Kant both says that we should recognize our duties as God's commands, and objects to the theological version of heteronomy, 'which derives morality from a divine and supremely perfect will'. In this paper I discuss how these two views fit together, and in the process I develop a notion of autonomous submission to divine moral authority. I oppose the 'constitutive' view of autonomy proposed by J. B. Schneewind and Christine Korsgaard. I locate Kant's objection to theological heteronomy against the background of Crusius's divine command theory, and I compare Kant's views about divine authority and human political authority. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Transcendental Philosophy 2020; 1(3): 307–312
    Journal of Transcendental Philosophy 2020; 1(3): 307–312 Book Review Huaping Lu-Adler. Kant and the Science of Logic: A Historical and Philosophical Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018. Reviewed by Stephen Palmquist, Department of Religion & Philosophy, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, E-mail: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.1515/jtph-2020-0021 Notwithstanding its title, this book is not about the science called “logic”—at least, not insofar as “science of logic” refers to the rules, procedures, and guiding principles that constitute the laws of thought. While Huaping Lu-Adler often refers in passing to logical operations such as syllogisms, she never discusses their rules of operation. She does mention the law/principle of (non)contradiction eight times and that of identity once (p. 14); yet these all appear in quotes or side-comments. (She never mentions the law of excluded middle.) Similarly, she limits her treat- ment of potentially relevant post-Kantian developments in logic to a few brief glosses on Boole and Frege (pp. 3, 195–7), without referring to propositional logic, fuzzy logic, dialetheism, etc. However, this is all by design, so prepared readers need not be surprised by such omissions. Indeed, as the author announces in the Introduction and repeatedly reminds her readers, the book’s focus is on “the philosophy of logic” (pp. 3–4), not on the mechanics of how logical relations as such actually function. The Introduction acknowledges that historians of logic have typically either defined logic narrowly and therefore found nothing new—and thus little worth writing about—in Kant and other Enlightenment philosophers, or else they have followed Kant’s immediate predecessors by defining logic in a broader sense than we do nowadays and have therefore written voluminously on the views of “logic” advanced during this period, but in ways that relate very little to modern con- ceptions of logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Wallensteen Understanding
    Peter Wallensteen UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT F O U R TH RESOLUTION EDITION SAGE was founded in 1965 by Sara Miller McCune to support the dissemination of usable knowledge by publishing innovative and high-quality research and teaching content. Today, we publish more than 750 journals, including those of more than 300 learned societies, more than 800 new books per year, and a growing range of library products including archives, data, case studies, reports, conference highlights, and video. SAGE remains majority-owned by our founder, and after Sara’s lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures our continued independence. Los Angeles | London | Washington DC | New Delhi | Singapore 00_Wallensteen_Prelims.indd 3 3/11/2015 1:02:59 PM 4 ANALYSING CONFLICT RESOLUTION 4.1 Basic and Complex Levels of Analysis In the preceding chapters, we developed a general understanding of the concept of conflict. This is a necessary initial step in conflict analysis. Here, our task is to approach conflicts where arms are used and the role this gives to conflict resolu- tion. Armed conflict is one category of the general phenomenon of social conflict. It has some distinct features. It normally grows out of non-armed conflict, in the sequences illustrated in Figure 3.3, but involves not just a shift in behaviour. It has other aspects associated with the three concepts of parties, incompatibility and action. First, there is a particular role for the state as soon as a conflict becomes armed. The reasons for this are explained in Section 4.2. There are also armed, as well as unarmed, non-state actors in many armed conflicts, and, for a fuller analy- sis, it is necessary to include them.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Global Rigidity in Complex and Pseudo-Euclidean Spaces 3
    GENERIC GLOBAL RIGIDITY IN COMPLEX AND PSEUDO-EUCLIDEAN SPACES STEVEN J. GORTLER AND DYLAN P. THURSTON Abstract. In this paper we study the property of generic global rigidity for frameworks of graphs embedded in d-dimensional complex space and in a d-dimensional pseudo- Euclidean space (Rd with a metric of indefinite signature). We show that a graph is generically globally rigid in Euclidean space iff it is generically globally rigid in a complex or pseudo-Euclidean space. We also establish that global rigidity is always a generic property of a graph in complex space, and give a sufficient condition for it to be a generic property in a pseudo-Euclidean space. Extensions to hyperbolic space are also discussed. 1. Introduction The property of generic global rigidity of a graph in d-dimensional Euclidean space has recently been fully characterized [4, 7]. It is quite natural to study this property in other spaces as well. For example, recent work of Owen and Jackson [8] has studied the number of equivalent realizations of frameworks in C2. In this paper we study the property of generic global rigidity of graphs embedded in Cd as well as graphs embedded in a pseudo Euclidean space (Rd equipped with an indefinite metric signature). We show that a graph Γ is generically globally rigid (GGR) in d-dimensional Euclidean space iff Γ is GGR in d-dimensional complex space. Moreover, for any metric signature, s, We show that a graph Γ is GGR in d-dimensional Euclidean space iff Γ is GGR in d- dimensional real space under the signature s.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Commentary on Cs Peirce's “On a New List
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts A PHILOSOPHICAL COMMENTARY ON C. S. PEIRCE'S \ON A NEW LIST OF CATEGORIES": EXHIBITING LOGICAL STRUCTURE AND ABIDING RELEVANCE A Dissertation in Philosophy by Masato Ishida °c 2009 Masato Ishida Submitted in Partial Ful¯lment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2009 The dissertation of Masato Ishida was reviewed and approved¤ by the following: Vincent M. Colapietro Professor of Philosophy Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Dennis Schmidt Professor of Philosophy Christopher P. Long Associate Professor of Philosophy Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of Philosophy Stephen G. Simpson Professor of Mathematics ¤ Signatures are on ¯le in the Graduate School. ii ABSTRACT This dissertation focuses on C. S. Peirce's relatively early paper \On a New List of Categories"(1867). The entire dissertation is devoted to an extensive and in-depth analysis of this single paper in the form of commentary. All ¯fteen sections of the New List are examined. Rather than considering the textual genesis of the New List, or situating the work narrowly in the early philosophy of Peirce, as previous scholarship has done, this work pursues the genuine philosophical content of the New List, while paying attention to the later philosophy of Peirce as well. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is also taken into serious account, to which Peirce contrasted his new theory of categories. iii Table of Contents List of Figures . ix Acknowledgements . xi General Introduction 1 The Subject of the Dissertation . 1 Features of the Dissertation .
    [Show full text]
  • Title Peirce's General Theory of Signs Author(S)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kyoto University Research Information Repository Title Peirce's General Theory of Signs Author(s) Clare Thornbury Finding Meaning, Cultures Across Borders: International Citation Dialogue between Philosophy and Psychology (2011): 49-57 Issue Date 2011-03-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/143046 The copyright of papers included in this paper belongs to each Right author. Type Article Textversion publisher Kyoto University 49 Peirce's General Theory of Signs CLARE THORNBURY Institute of Education, University of London Charles. S Peirce was one ofthe founders ofPragmatism, alongside William James and John Dewey. This paper looks at Peirce's later work on his theory of signs, or semiotic. Peirce's semiotic is a broad one, including as signs things that other semioticians may reject. Peirce's semiotic includes a key division ofsigns into the three categories ofIcon, Index and Symbol. This trichotomy and the breadth ofPeirce's semiotic makes it well suited to, for example, a semiology of cinema. The basic structure ofthe sign in Peirce is also triadic, being a relation between sign-object-interpretant, and this brings us to a further appreciation of the sign as sign-action: a move from semiotic to semiosis. Peirce's approach to the philosophy of language goes beyond language to a theory of signs in general, and this 'semiotic' is deeply embedded within his broader systematic philosophical works. To understand it therefore, it is helpful to do two things: 1) to understand the breadth of Peirce's semiotic and 2) to differentiate it from other philosophical theories in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Peircean Trichotomy of Icon, Index, and Symbol
    Semiotica 2016; 213: 165–175 Ersu Ding* Rethinking the Peircean trichotomy of icon, index, and symbol DOI 10.1515/sem-2015-0134 Abstract: Classification of signs into various kinds is a vital enterprise in semio- tic research. As early as over a century ago, the American semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce laid down a solid foundation for this work by proposing his famous trichotomy of signs. Later scholars have been mostly applying Peirce’s theory to their own semiotic studies rather than challenging the inadequacies that exist therein, thus giving rise to a great number of confusions or even contradictions. The present article modifies Peirce’s theory from the perspective of sign emergence and evolution and emphasizes the importance of understanding sign transformations. Keywords: classification of signs, Peircean trichotomy, index, icon, symbol, sign emergence and evolution When scholars discuss the issue of sign classification, they tend to think of the American semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce, who is widely known for his trichotomous division of signs. For whatever reasons, Peirce takes a particular fancy to “3” and applies the number to many of the things he investigates. As can be seen in Figure 1, he breaks the entity of a sign into three essential elements (representamen, object, and interpretant) as opposed to two (signifier and signified), which is the case with Ferdinand de Saussure (1989: 67). The word “sign” at the top of Figure 1 ought to be interpreted in its narrow sense, referring to the form, vehicle or what Peirce himself calls the representa- men of a sign entity. The American then further analyses each of these elements into its own triple subcategories, resulting in his rather complicated if not cumbersome “three trichotomies.” To begin with, Peirce classifies a sign vehicle as qualisign, sinsign,orlegisign in accordance with its distinctive formal feature.
    [Show full text]
  • A Generic Property of the Bounded Syzygy Solutions Author(S): Florin N
    A Generic Property of the Bounded Syzygy Solutions Author(s): Florin N. Diacu Source: Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 116, No. 3 (Nov., 1992), pp. 809-812 Published by: American Mathematical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2159450 Accessed: 16/11/2009 21:52 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ams. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Mathematical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. http://www.jstor.org PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 116, Number 3, November 1992 A GENERIC PROPERTY OF THE BOUNDED SYZYGY SOLUTIONS FLORIN N.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trichotomy of Processes: a Philosophical Basis for Information Systems
    Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS 2003 Proceedings (AMCIS) 12-31-2003 The rT ichotomy of Processes: A Philosophical Basis for Information Systems George Widmeyer University of Michigan Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003 Recommended Citation Widmeyer, George, "The rT ichotomy of Processes: A Philosophical Basis for Information Systems" (2003). AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 362. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/362 This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2003 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRICHOTOMY OF PROCESSES: A PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS George R. Widmeyer University of Michigan [email protected] Abstract The principle of trichotomy from the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce can be used to categorize processes into the triad of transactional, informational, and relational. The usefulness of these categories is explicated by a comparison with structuration theory and control theory, and elaborated with a consideration of democracy in a knowledge economy. These three example applications of the process triad show the generality of the conceptual categories and provide a natural way of bringing ideas from social and ethical theories into information systems design. Modeling the world and understanding business applications through the use of the Trichotomy of Processes should facilitate the development of more valuable information systems. Keywords: Business processes, information systems theory, conceptual modeling, ontology, Peirce, open society Introduction Various frameworks for understanding the business processes of an organization have been proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lids-R-904 Robust Stability of Linear Systems
    LIDS-R-904 ROBUST STABILITY OF LINEAR SYSTEMS - SOME COMPUTATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS* by Alan J. Laub** 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper we shall concentrate on some of the computational issues which arise in studying the robust stability of linear systems. Insofar as possible, we shall use notation consistent with Stein's paper [11 and we shall make frequent reference to that work. As we saw in [1] a basic stability question for a linear time-invariant system with transfer matrix G(s) is the following: given that a nominal closed-loop feedbadk system is stable, does the feedback system remain stable when subjected to perturbations and how large can those perturba- tions be? It turned out, through invocation of the Nyquist Criterion, that the size of the allowable perturbations was related to the "nearness to singularity" of the return difference matrix I + G(jW). Closed-loop stability was said to be "robust" if G could tolerate considerable perturbation before I + G became singular. Invited Paper presented at the Second Annual Workshop on the Informa- tion Linkage between Applied Mathematics and Industry held at Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Feb. 20-24, 1979; this research was partially supported by NASA under grant NGL-22-009-124 and the Department of Energy under grant ET-78-(01-3395). ** Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Pm. 35-331, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA 02139. -2- We shall now indulge in a modicum of abstraction and attempt to formalize the notion of robustness. The definition will employ some jargon from algebraic geometry and will be applicable to a variety of situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are There Four Hegelian Judgments
    Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law LARC @ Cardozo Law Articles Faculty 2004 Why are There Four Hegelian Judgments David Gray Carlson Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David G. Carlson, Why are There Four Hegelian Judgments, 3 Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal 143 (2004). Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/20 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at LARC @ Cardozo Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of LARC @ Cardozo Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. WHY ARE THERE FOUR HEGELIAN JUDGMENTS? David Gray Carlson* Hegel is the philosopher of threes. In the Encyclopedia system, there is logic-nature-spirit. Within logic, there is being-essence-notion. Within notion, there is subject-object-idea. Within subjectivity, there is notion-judgment-syllogism. Yet, as everyone notices, when it comes to judgment, the structure is tetrachotomous. Here we find existence-re- flection-necessity-notion. Why should there be four judgments when there are only three of everything else? Why must Shemp intrude upon the sublime perfection of Moe, Larry, and Curly? What need we d'Artagnan when Porthos, Athos, and Aramis seem the perfect three­ some? Three's company. Four's a crowd! In the Science of Logic,' Hegel does not allude very directly to the change, but in the Encyclopedia Logic, Hegel explains; [T]he different species of judgement derive their features from the universal forms of the logical idea itself.
    [Show full text]