Superextensions which are Hilbert cubes

It is shown that each separable metric, not totally disconnected, topological space admits a superextension homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube. Moreover, for simple spaces, such as the closed unit interval or then-spheresS n , we give easily described subbases for which the corresponding superextension is homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube

Autosomal genetic variation is associated with DNA methylation in regions variably escaping X-chromosome inactivation

This is the final version of the article. Available from Springer Nature via the DOI in this record.Raw data were submitted to the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) under accession EGAS00001001077.X-chromosome inactivation (XCI), i.e., the inactivation of one of the female X chromosomes, restores equal expression of X-chromosomal genes between females and males. However, ~10% of genes show variable degrees of escape from XCI between females, although little is known about the causes of variable XCI. Using a discovery data-set of 1867 females and 1398 males and a replication sample of 3351 females, we show that genetic variation at three autosomal loci is associated with female-specific changes in X-chromosome methylation. Through cis-eQTL expression analysis, we map these loci to the genes SMCHD1/METTL4, TRIM6/HBG2, and ZSCAN9. Low-expression alleles of the loci are predominantly associated with mild hypomethylation of CpG islands near genes known to variably escape XCI, implicating the autosomal genes in variable XCI. Together, these results suggest a genetic basis for variable escape from XCI and highlight the potential of a population genomics approach to identify genes involved in XCI.This research was financially supported by several institutions: BBMRI-NL, a Research Infrastructure financed by the Dutch government (NWO, numbers 184.021.007 and 184.033.111); the UK Medical Research Council; Wellcome (www.wellcome.ac.uk; [grant number 102215/2/13/2 to ALSPAC]); the University of Bristol to ALSPAC; the UK Economic and Social Research Council (www.esrc.ac.uk; [ES/N000498/1] to CR); the UK Medical Research Council (www.mrc.ac.uk; grant numbers [MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/2 to JLM, CR]); the Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the State of Bavaria; the Munich Center of Health Sciences (MC-Health), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, as part of LMUinnovativ; the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, European Union (EU), and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)- funded BioResource, Clinical Research Facility, and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London

Arguments from parallel reasoning

Argumentation is a co-production by a proponent and an opponent who engage in a critical examination of their difference of opinion, aiming to resolve it on the merits of both sides, or so I assume in this paper. I shall investigate the consequences of this view for a particular type of argument from analogy, called argument from parallel reasoning, that has been discussed in some detail by Woods and Hudak in 1989. Suppose, a proponent contends that we should allow camera surveillance with drones by the Amsterdam police, on account of these drones' cost-effectiveness. Suppose further, that the opponent addressed makes it clear that she acknowledges the drones' cost-effectiveness, as well as the relevance of this consideration, but that she remains, nevertheless, critical towards the proponent's thesis for worrying about intrusions on privacy. In such a case, the proponent may consider it to be expedient to put forward an argument such as: “You would consent to cameras on satellites on account of their cost-effectiveness, and despite privacy considerations. Well, reasoning from cost-effectiveness to cameras on drones, despite privacy considerations, is comparable to reasoning from cost-effectiveness to cameras on satellites, despite privacy considerations.” How are such arguments generated in dialogue, and in which circumstances, if any, is such an indirect, and possibly even superficial way of arguing correct? I shall illustrate my findings with an atypical example of an argument from analogy, put forward by John Stuart Mill, in favour of the existence of other minds

Characterizing stable complete Erdös space

We focus on the space