Witold Marciszewski

We discuss the existence of universal spaces (either in the sense of embeddings or continuous images) for some classes of scattered Eberlein compacta. Given a cardinal κ, we consider the class Sκ of all scattered Eberlein compact spaces K of weight ≤ κ and such that the second Cantor-Bendixson derivative of K is a singleton. We prove that if κ is an uncountable cardinal such that κ = 2&ltκ, then there exists a space X in Sκ such that every member of Sκ is homeomorphic to a retract of X. We show that it is consistent that there does not exist a universal space (either by embeddings or by mappings onto) in Sω₁. Assuming that ∂ = ω₁, we prove that there exists a space X ∈ Sω₁, which is universal in the sense of embeddings. We also show that it is consistent that there exists a space X ∈ Sω₁, universal in the sense of embeddings, but Sω₁ does not contain an universal element in the sense of mappings onto

1 Recognition Device........................................ 3 2 Classical Categorial Grammar............................... 4 3 Classical Categorial Grammar. Examples..................... 5 4 Logic Grammar........................................... 8 5 Lambek calculus. Examples................................ 9 6 Lambek calculus. Semantics................................ 11 7 Lambek calculus. Advantages............................... 12 8 Derivations............................................... 13 9 Residuated and Galois Connected Functions.................. 14 10 Interpretation of the Constants.............................. 15 11 Nonveridical Functions..................................... 16 12 Dutch.................................................... 18 13 Classification of NPIs in Dutch.............................. 19 14 Antilicensing Relation...................................... 20..

There is a lot of fuzziness about the concept of civilization, and this is why the paper starts from an attempt to clarify this concept. This consists in selecting one entity which is commonly acknowledged as a system of civilization, examining its main features, and then exemplifying how to define them operationally. These features are treated as if they were answers to certain questions. Now other systems can be addressed with the same questions; if a system is able to answer them, in this way or other, it proves to be a civilizational system. The answers expected are those to express attitudes toward science, democracy, free market, tolerance, etc. Islam, e.g. does not prove to be a unique civilizational system, since there are represented in it much varying attitudes in each point in question. On the other hand, the communist paradigm does so, since it offers an answer of its own in each of the listed issues. Its answers directly oppose those offered by liberal civilization, thus there are at least two paradigms of civilization, the liberal and the anti-liberal. In the second part, it is argued that though the West is the cradle of liberal civilization, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the trait of being Western and that of being liberal. Also the main totalitarian projects of civilization were bom in the West, while same seeds of liberal civilization (Christianity, science as stemming from mathematics, etc.) came from the East. Nowadays, significant contributions to liberal civilization are due to people from any race, culture and continent. The destiny of liberal civilization is to become universal, while the Western contribution to it, when seen in a great evolutionary perspective, is just a historical episode.

The paper is meant as a survey of issues in computational complexity from the standpoint of its relevance to social research. Moreover, the threads are hinted at that lead to computer science from mathematical logic and from philosophical questions about the limits and the power both of mathematics and the human mind. Especially, the paper addresses Turing's idea of oracle, considering its impact on computational (i.e., relying on simulations) economy, sociology etc. Oracle is meant as a device capable of finding the values of uncomputable functions. Such an idealized entity is exemplified by the human mind's procedure of recognizing the truth of the Gödelian sentence, of identifying uncomputable numbers through Turing's diagonal procedure, etc. Since such procedures are strictly defined and are as reliable as any calculations, they are worth to be called computation as well. From the computation in the strict sense, that defined as purely algorithmic (mechanical) process, one distinguishes them with the term "hipercomputation". Now the following questions arise. - Are there undecidable problems (ie. not decidable with appropriate algorithms) in social research as are (according to what is reported esp. By S. Wolfram) in natural sciences? The answer in the negative would impose limitations on computer simulations (as entirely relying on algorithms). - If there are, then we have the next question: can such problems be addressed with hipercomputational procedures? - How such hipercomputational procedures would be related to analog computation (coextensive, everlappiing, etc.)? Another set of issues is stated in terms of tractability of decidable problems, that is, the efficiency of algorithms needed for solutions. As inefficient are regarded those which require more resources (time, memory, etc.) than is available in a foreseeable future. In this context, one discusses methods of such an efficient organizing computational processes to overcome the scarcity of resources; thus parallel, distributive, interactive, etc. computing are used as remedies. The paper claims, hinting at F.Hayek's ideas, that in some social systems (e.g., stock exchange, and free market in general) such an efficient organization of their computational activities spontaneously evolves. And this is the main source of its advantages over the central economic planning (as defended by O. Lange). This noticing (in terms of complexity theory) of analogy between Hayek's point and the current discussion of efficiency of algorithms is what may count as an original contribution of the present paper

When discussing Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz's role in philosophy, it is worthwhile recalling his participation in scholarly controversies. It was characteristic of his open mind that his taking part in debates was motivated by a vivid interest in various ways of thinking. Ajdukiewicz's intellectual power consisted, so to speak, in his ability of not to understand. This ability has brought him success in some important debates, concerning i.a. the classical logical concept of contradiction and the debate on universals raised in modern Poland with the nominalistic program of Stanislaw Lesniewski and Tadeusz Kotarbiński. In this latter debate Ajdukiewicz shows that when one says that individuals exist, the word „exist" refers to something different that in the statement that universals exist. In other words, the functor „is" has a different category in the definition of an individual from that appearing in the definition of a universal; hence there must be two different senses of the word „exist"