Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Logic — valid inference and its formal theories — propositional and model-theoretic structures, proof and consequence, and inferentialist accounts of meaning (group: philosophy).
8 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-055 v4 | If communicative categories form a non-Boolean lattice, and the communicative object is a presheaf over contexts, over which base category is it one, and does some probe family split it into sectors that no probe connects? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-119, CLAIM-038, CLAIM-044, QUESTION-025 and QUESTION-031. Given a presheaf over contexts, the negation is the Heyting pseudo-complement, and that part is QUESTION-247, Answered. That the communicative object is a presheaf over contexts is QUESTION-332, Answered by CLAIM-038. Over which base, and whether probes split it into sectors, is open. THEORY-041 and THEORY-042 bear on it; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-152 | Does the impossibility of robustly rational proposition-wise aggregation extend from categorical judgments to corporate attitudes in general: degrees of belief, desires, intentions or emotions? | The second clause of THEORY-127’s former promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-127 was promoted, narrowed, after the record re-derived Proposition 3 of List and Pettit (2006) for categorical judgments. List (2014), LIT-700, makes holistic supervenience the mark of corporate attitudes in general. Neither paper proves the impossibility for attitudes other than binary judgments, and the record holds no such result. | Open |
| QUESTION-156 | Which published models of concept combination reproduce overextension by dropping conjunction-as-meet, and which by dropping an order-preserving membership weight? | What remains of THEORY-255’s former promote_when after its promotion. In any lattice with an order-preserving membership weight, conjunction as meet cannot overextend. So every model that reproduces Hampton’s guppy-type items drops one of the two. Aerts drops the meet with an emergent subspace. Which assumption the other models drop, Busemeyer and Bruza’s (LIT-316, unavailable) and Franco’s among them, has not been read. | Open |
| QUESTION-188 | Is delete-and-rederive correct for recursive Datalog views with stratified negation and aggregation, and how large is its overestimate of deletions against the deletions actually needed? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 042, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-387. Theorem 7.1 of Gupta, Mumick and Subrahmanian (LIT-1114) was re-derived for positive recursive Datalog under set semantics. The paper asserts the extension to stratified negation and aggregation and leaves its proof to an unseen 1992 report; it measures no overestimate. This question holds both. | Open |
| QUESTION-225 | Are why-provenance and, for traceable queries, where-provenance preserved by Buneman, Khanna and Tan’s rewrite system, and is traceability necessary for where-provenance to be preserved? | Formerly part of THEORY-367’s title. THEORY-367 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) for what is re-derived: minimal witnesses are invariant across equivalent SPJU queries, and where-provenance is not. Whether the paper’s rewrite system preserves why- and where-provenance, and whether traceability is necessary, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-247 v2 | If the communicative object is a presheaf of propositions over a category of contexts, is the negation its topos logic gives an orthocomplement or a Heyting pseudo-complement, and what fixes it? | The conditional part of QUESTION-055, split off under ADR-049 and answered by THEORY-516 and THEORY-037. Over a presheaf of contexts the truth values are sieves, and negation is the Heyting pseudo-complement that the base category fixes, not an orthocomplement. That the communicative object is such a presheaf is QUESTION-332, Answered by CLAIM-038. Over which base, and whether probes split it into sectors, stays with QUESTION-055. | Answered |
| QUESTION-279 v3 | What would certify that no remedy is available to an institutional arrangement, rather than that its present procedures failed to find, authorize or carry one out before the deadline? | A10 of the exchange of 2026-10-26, on the owner’s U10: the correctability frontier “reminds me of the ‘if I can’t find it, it isn’t there’ stuff. let’s poke out the resource-boundedness here.” CLAIM-312 holds that a failed search establishes unavailability, and absence only with a certificate that the unsearched remainder cannot hold the item. An institution’s “we cannot” is the same statement about remedies, and a court must decide whether to accept it. An answer says what such a certificate would be for a remedy, and who can issue it. | Open |
| QUESTION-332 | Is the communicative object a presheaf over contexts? | The first remaining part of QUESTION-055, split off by the fourteenth status review under ADR-049 because CLAIM-038 (Active since 2026-10-29) settles it: a communicative object is a context-indexed system of empirical constraints over a cover of contexts, supports or distributions with their restrictions (TERM-042), which is a presheaf over contexts. Which base category it has, and whether some probe family splits it into sectors, stays QUESTION-055’s. | Answered |