Strong Admissibility Revisited

Preprin

Strong Admissibility Revisited (proofs)

Postprin

Strong admissibility revisited: Theory and applications

In the current paper, we re-examine the concept of strong admissibility, as was originally introduced by Baroni and Giacomin. We examine the formal properties of strong admissibility, both in its extension-based and in its labelling-based form, and analyse the computational complexity of the relevant decision problems. Moreover, we show that strong admissibility plays a vital role in discussion-based proof procedures for grounded semantics. In particular it allows one to compare the performance of alternative dialectical proof procedures for grounded semantics, and obtain some remarkable differences between the Standard Grounded Game and the Grounded Discussion Game

The rule in Hollington v Hewthorn in the light of section 17 Of The Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965 in South Africa

Magister Legum - LLMSouth Africa, among others, has adopted, and is bound by, the so-called 'rule in Hollington‘ that originated in England in 1943 in Hollington v Hewthorn (hereinafter the 'Hollington case‘). The issue, among others, that the English Appeal Court had to determine in this case was whether a judgement of a criminal court could be used in subsequent civil proceedings to prove the liability of either of the litigants. The Court reached the conclusion that a judgement of a criminal court is just an irrelevant and inadmissible opinion in later civil proceedings. The court adopted the view that had a criminal conviction been admissible evidence in civil proceedings, it would lead to a situation where the defendant would end up challenging the propriety of those convictions. In the light of that, the courts would be faced with a duty to retry the criminal case in the midst of the civil proceedings. Section 17 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act (CPEA) provides that a conviction or an acquittal can be proved by the production of a document dully certified by the relevant court that acquitted or convicted the person in question. Furthermore, section 18 of the Supreme Court Act (SuCA) now section 34 of the Superior Courts Act (SupCA) provides that whenever a judgement, among other things, of a court needs to be proved or referred to in any manner a duly certified copy thereof will serve as prima facie evidence thereof. These sections militate against the rule in Hollington in that they allow, or at least should be interpreted in a manner that accords with the allowance of, the admissibility of conviction evidence in later civil law suits

LpL^{p} estimates for joint quasimodes of semiclassical pseudodifferential operators

We develop a set of $L^{p}$ estimates for functions $u$ that are a joint quasimode (approximate eigenfunction) of $r$ pseudodifferential operators $p_{1}(x,hD),\dots,p_{r}(x,hD)$. This work extends Sarnak and Marshall's work on symmetric space to cover a more general class of manifolds/operators

Structural completeness in propositional logics of dependence

In this paper we prove that three of the main propositional logics of dependence (including propositional dependence logic and inquisitive logic), none of which is structural, are structurally complete with respect to a class of substitutions under which the logics are closed. We obtain an analogues result with respect to stable substitutions, for the negative variants of some well-known intermediate logics, which are intermediate theories that are closely related to inquisitive logic