Clones, order varieties, near unanimity functions and holes

Order ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. W. Quackenbush ◽  
I. Rival ◽  
I. G. Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
Near Unanimity

Informed Consent and the Elusive Dichotomy Between Standard and Experimental Therapy

2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-408
Author(s):  
Lars Noah
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
College Campuses ◽  
Human Experimentation ◽  
Experimental Therapy ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Medical Experimentation ◽  
Disclosure Rules ◽  
Near Unanimity

A rich academic literature exists about issues of informed consent in medical care, and, to a lesser extent, about a variety of issues posed by human experimentation. Most commentators regard patient autonomy as a desirable— though in practice often unattainable—goal, and near unanimity exists about the necessity for even fuller disclosure before experimenting on subjects. Although this Article intentionally side-steps the broader debate about informed consent, it challenges the conventional wisdom that special disclosure rules should apply in the experimental context.Clinical trials have become big business. Estimates suggest that as many as twenty million Americans have enrolled in formal biomedical studies, though, as a measure of the full scope of medical experimentation on humans, that figure may represent only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Historically, sponsors of clinical trials recruited subjects informally, counting on word of mouth among physicians and also perhaps posting flyers around college campuses.

scholarly journals Robust algorithms with polynomial loss for near-unanimity CSPs

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Víctor Dalmau ◽  
Marcin Kozik ◽  
Andrei Krokhin ◽  
Konstantin Makarychev ◽  
Yury Makarychev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Robust Algorithms ◽  
Near Unanimity

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY OF VARIOUS MAL'CEV CONDITIONS

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (06) ◽  
pp. 1521-1531 ◽  
Author(s):  
JONAH HOROWITZ
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Polynomial Time ◽  
Mal’Cev Condition ◽  
Exponential Time ◽  
Cube Term ◽  
Near Unanimity

This paper examines the computational complexity of determining whether or not an algebra satisfies a certain Mal'Cev condition. First, we define a class of Mal'Cev conditions whose satisfaction can be determined in polynomial time (special cube term satisfying the DCP) when the algebra in question is idempotent and provide an algorithm through which this determination may be made. The aforementioned class notably includes near unanimity terms and edge terms of fixed arity. Second, we define a different class of Mal'Cev conditions whose satisfaction, in general, requires exponential time to determine (Mal'Cev conditions satisfiable by CPB0 operations).

On the generation of clones containing near-unanimity operations

2011 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Kerkhoff
Keyword(s):  
Near Unanimity

Jónsson Terms and Near-Unanimity Functions in Finite Posets

Order ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 291-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gábor Kun ◽  
Csaba Szabó
Keyword(s):  
Near Unanimity ◽  
Finite Posets

Does V equal L?

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Maddy
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Simple Approach ◽  
The Other ◽  
Near Unanimity ◽  
Rational Evaluation

Does V = L? Is the Axiom of Constructibility true? Most people with an opinion would answer no. But on what grounds? Despite the near unanimity with which V = L is declared false, the literature reveals no clear consensus on what counts as evidence against the hypothesis and no detailed analysis of why the facts of the sort cited constitute evidence one way or another. Unable to produce a well-developed argument one way or the other, some observers despair, retreating to unattractive fall-back positions, e.g., that the decision on whether or not V = L is a matter of personal aesthetics. I would prefer to avoid such conclusions, if possible. If we are to believe that L is not V, as so many would urge, then there ought to be good reasons for this belief, reasons that can be stated clearly and subjected to rational evaluation. Though no complete argument has been presented, the literature does contain a number of varied argument fragments, and it is worth asking whether some of these might be developed into a persuasive case.One particularly simple approach would be to note that the existence of a measurable cardinal (MC) implies that V ≠ L,1and to argue that there is a measurable cardinal. The drawback to this approach is that its implying V ≠ L cannot then be counted as evidence in favor of MC, as it often is. Indeed, there seems to have been considerable sentiment against V = L even before the proof of its negation from MC,2and this sentiment must either be accounted for as reasonable or explained away as an aberration of some kind.

Relations compatible with near unanimity operations

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 279-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Snow
Keyword(s):  
Near Unanimity
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document