univalg at Yahoo! Groups

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION * ICFCA 2010 * 8th INTERNATIONAL CONFEREN

Leonard Kwuida — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:34:37 GMT

(Apologies for cross posting) ================================================================================ CALL FOR PARTICIPATION *** ICFCA 2010 *** 8th

International Conference on Algebras and Lattices, Prague 2010

David Stanovsky — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:32:27 GMT

You are cordially invited to the International Conference on Algebras and Lattices, or "JARDAFEST", held on the occasion of the 65th birthday of Jaroslav

Commutators Revisited

Jens — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:23:18 GMT

When sitting in the subway yesterday, I wondered about commutators again and about unificators. My area of interest is the world of formulas, especially

First Announcement BLAST 2010

Keith A. Kearnes — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:57:37 GMT

***************************************************************** *********** First Announcement BLAST 2010 ************

equations in residuated algebras

Szabolcs — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:54:39 GMT

Vaughan Pratt showed in his 1990 Action Logic paper that for the similarity type consisting of meet, composition (or relative product, or fusion) and its two

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Steve Vickers — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:16:36 GMT

Dear Jens, (a) Remember that in a lattice <= is only a partial order, not total in general. Think of the example of a powerset, where <= is interpreted as the

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Jens — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:49:10 GMT

Hi, I'd like to know a) what "not(a<=b)" could mean instead of "a>b"? b) how I could use these notions in propositional logic? Jens

Call for Papers : International Journal of Mathematics and Computati

Int. J. App. Mathematics & Stats — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:03:04 GMT

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation (IJMC). ISSN 0974-570X (Online); ISSN 0974-5718 (Print) http://ceser.res.in/ijmc.html

Re: atomic/atomistic?

David Hobby — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:58:22 GMT

Ralph Freese wrote: ... ... Hi. I don't have anything to add about atomic/atomistic, but would like to plug Wikipedia as an excellent forum for sorting out

Re: atomic/atomistic?

George Gratzer — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:28:56 GMT

Correct as stated. GG

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Steve Vickers — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:20:55 GMT

Dear Vaughan, Are you thinking of the phrase "complete atomic Boolean algebra"? Because for complete Boolean algebras B "atomic" and "atomistic" are

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Ralph Freese — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:08:08 GMT

Hi Vaughan, ... No, the wikipedia article is how I, and I think most lattice theorists, understand these notions. Two related notions: *weakly atomic* means

atomic/atomistic?

Vaughan Pratt — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:22:37 GMT

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_(order)#Important_lattice-theoretic_notions Wikipedia claims that a lattice L is (i) *Atomic* if for every nonzero

New Number Theory Group

primorial3 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:44:33 GMT

The 'numbertheory' Yahoo group was very well-maintained, had a membership of 1200 and the discussion was of a high level of sophistication. Unfortunately the

Re: Commutator eqn. for modularity

George Janelidze — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:52:27 GMT

It is hard to argue against Keith's observation that using meets and joins one can express modularity... But seriously, in the context of "Pseudogroupoids and

univalg at Yahoo! Groups

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION *** ICFCA 2010 *** 8th INTERNATIONAL CONFEREN

International Conference on Algebras and Lattices, Prague 2010

Commutators Revisited

First Announcement BLAST 2010

equations in residuated algebras

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Call for Papers : International Journal of Mathematics and Computati

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Re: atomic/atomistic?

Re: atomic/atomistic?

atomic/atomistic?

New Number Theory Group

Re: Commutator eqn. for modularity

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION * ICFCA 2010 * 8th INTERNATIONAL CONFEREN