Warning: this is an htmlized version!
The original is here, and the conversion rules are here. |

% (find-LATEX "2020gaina-kowalski.tex") % (defun c () (interactive) (find-LATEXsh "lualatex -record 2020gaina-kowalski.tex" :end)) % (defun d () (interactive) (find-pdf-page "~/LATEX/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf")) % (defun d () (interactive) (find-pdftools-page "~/LATEX/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf")) % (defun e () (interactive) (find-LATEX "2020gaina-kowalski.tex")) % (defun u () (interactive) (find-latex-upload-links "2020gaina-kowalski")) % (defun v () (interactive) (find-2a '(e) '(d)) (g)) % (find-pdf-page "~/LATEX/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf") % (find-sh0 "cp -v ~/LATEX/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf /tmp/") % (find-sh0 "cp -v ~/LATEX/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf /tmp/pen/") % file:///home/edrx/LATEX/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf % file:///tmp/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf % file:///tmp/pen/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf % http://angg.twu.net/LATEX/2020gaina-kowalski.pdf % (find-LATEX "2019.mk") \documentclass[oneside,12pt]{article} \usepackage[colorlinks,citecolor=DarkRed,urlcolor=DarkRed]{hyperref} % (find-es "tex" "hyperref") \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{pict2e} \usepackage[x11names,svgnames]{xcolor} % (find-es "tex" "xcolor") %\usepackage{colorweb} % (find-es "tex" "colorweb") %\usepackage{tikz} % \usepackage{edrx15} % (find-LATEX "edrx15.sty") \input edrxaccents.tex % (find-LATEX "edrxaccents.tex") \input edrxchars.tex % (find-LATEX "edrxchars.tex") \input edrxheadfoot.tex % (find-LATEX "edrxheadfoot.tex") \input edrxgac2.tex % (find-LATEX "edrxgac2.tex") % % (find-es "tex" "geometry") \begin{document} % (find-books "__cats/__cats.el" "gaina-kowalski") % (find-symbolspage 20) Referee report on: ``Fra\"isse-Hintikka Theorem in institutions'', by Daniel G\u{a}in\u{a} and Tomasz Kowalski \bigskip Let me start by confessing that I am not a specialist in institutions. When the editors asked me if I could be a referee for this paper I accepted because 1) I had been planning to learn instituions since a long time, and 2) because after a quick glance I got the impression that this paper could be very interesting. I wouldn't be able to judge how novel it is, but I decided to compensate that by reading it with a lot of attention and checking all the details that I could. I found this paper far more interesting that I expected --- fascinating, even. It is extremely well-written and practically self-contained; I knew some Categorical Semantics (mostly along the lines of, e.g., Bart Jacobs's book ``Categorical Logic and Type Theory'') and I was able to read the paper by just complementing that with the first three chapters of Razvan Diaconescu's book ``Institution-Independent Model Theory''. After the two first sections the paper go straight to some very non-trivial (to me, of course!) uses of institutions, with a way of defining quantification that I had never seen before, and then it defines certain games on top of that. It's beautiful stuff; for many people this kind of beauty and elegance is not enough, and the paper handles this by pointing in the introduction to several places where important applications of these games can be found. I was only able to spot two typos in the paper: a trivial one in the abstract, in which ``Fraïssé'' is written with ``Sc'' instead of ``ss'', and in page 5, in the grammar that defines sentences, I think that the ``for all'' at the right should be an ``exists''. There are two places in which I felt that the paper is not clear enough and it should be possible to fix this with small changes. The first one is in page 4: ``Note that, unlike the single-sorted case, the reduct functor modifies the universes of models''... for me it is obvious that every change of signature changes the domain of discourse of the sentences in some way, but the text says that the ``universe'' of a model is a set of sets, one for each sort, and this didn't make much sense to me; and this paragraph ends with ``Otherwise, the notion of reduct is standard''... does this ``standard'' mean ``standard in Model Theory'', because in (traditional?) Model Theory single-sortedness is the default? The second place in which I felt that the text could be clearer is in section 3.2. I had to struggle too much to understand what the signatures $\Sigma[X]$, $\Sigma_1[X]$, etc, and the pushouts ``mean'', and I think that the next readers will find the text much easier to read if the authors add a few sentences explaining that in the case we are interested in we are just choosing a set of variables X and adding the same set of variables (modulo some adjustments for technical reasons) to the signatures $\Sigma$, $\Sigma_1$, and $\Sigma_2$; also, it would be nice to point to places in the literature in which quantification spaces are used in less trivial ways, and in which the pushoutness of the squares in Figure 1 is really important. I guess that the reference [9], i.e., Diaconescu's paper ``Quasi-varieties and initial semantics for hybridized institutions'', has all this, but I didn't occur to me to download it and look at it until today (and I feel stupid in retrospect)... My overall impression is that this is an excellent paper, and I really hope that the other referees agree with me, and that it gets accepted and published. \end{document} % Local Variables: % coding: utf-8-unix % ee-tla: "NONE" % End: