To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
On the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Kyoko Selden Memorial Translation Prize through the generosity of her colleagues, students, and friends, the Department of Asian Studies at Cornell University is pleased to announce the winners of the 2018 Prize.
This article summarizes relevant historical developments involving Taiwan and Okinawa in Asia-Pacific multilateral relations over the longue durée, and suggests future prospects.
1. Both Taiwan and the Ryukyus are within the Kuroshio (Black Tide) Current Civilization Zone (from approximately the beginning of the 3rd Century): At that time, crops such as cassava and yams traveled northbound with the Kuroshio Currents, which ran from the Philippines to Taiwan and the Ryukyus to Kyushu, while crops such as millet in northern parts of South East Asia traveled to Taiwan via the South Sea and further traveled to the Ryukyus and Kyushu. Together with the path of rice from south of China's Yangtze River via Korea to Kyushu, Japan these were two important sea-borne cultural exchange paths in the Asia-Pacific. However, by the 3rd Century, the direct route from south of the Yangzi to central Japan, as well as the Silk Road from Chang'an in Northwest China to Central Asia, and the shipping route from Guangzhou to India superseded the aforesaid routes. As a result, Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands became isolated on the international stage for about one thousand years (Ts'ao, 1988).
The Xia-Shang Zhou Chronology Project was a five-year state-sponsored project, carried out between 1995–2000, to determine an absolute chronology of the Western Zhou dynasty and approximate chronologies of the Xia and Shang dynasties. At the end of the five years, the Project issued a provisional report entitled Report on the 1996–2000 Provisional Results of the Xia-Shang Zhou Chronology Project: Brief Edition detailing its results. A promised full report was finally published in 2022: Report on the Xia-Shang Zhou Chronology Project. Although numerous discoveries in the more than twenty years between the publications of the Brief Edition and the Report have revealed that the Project's absolute chronology of the Western Zhou is fundamentally flawed, and some of the problems are acknowledged by the Report, still the Report maintains the Project's chronology without any correction. In the review, I present four of these discoveries, from four different periods of the Western Zhou, discussing their implications for the Project's chronology. I conclude with a call for some sort of authoritative statement acknowledging the errors in the report.
The Jesuit Joachim Bouvet established an analogy between the binary arithmetic developed by Leibniz and the diagram Fuxi liushisi gua fangwei (or FX64), attributed to Shao Yong, which organizes the sixty-four hexagrams according to the Fuxi/Xiantian order. Consequently, this diagram could be considered as binary. Some scholars argue that the diagram is not binary because of the different construction of the two systems and the “wrong” reading direction used by Bouvet and Leibniz—opposite to the one used in China. Nevertheless, by a superimposition of Leibniz’s binary table and of the derivation table used to construct the diagram, this article shows that the diagram is binary, since it is constituted of two elements and the binary system can use other symbols than 0 and 1. The reverse methodology used in constructing the two systems because of their different purpose—division for the FX64 diagram and multiplication for Leibniz’s dyad—allows their reading from either one direction or the reverse. This does not affect the fact that they are both binary, since it leads to the same form and structure.
We investigate the statement “all automorphisms of ${\mathcal {P}}(\lambda )/[\lambda ]^{<\lambda }$ are trivial.” We show that MA implies the statement for regular uncountable $\lambda <2^{\aleph _0}$, that the statement is false for measurable $\lambda $ if $2^\lambda =\lambda ^+$, and that for “densely trivial” it can be forced (together with $2^\lambda =\lambda ^{++}$) for inaccessible $\lambda $.
The archeological discoveries of the past several decades have radically expanded our knowledge of the Laozi and its context. Thus far, most research has focused on the various manuscript versions of the text itself, but there is another way in which archeological evidence has changed our knowledge of the Laozi: the discovery of several other cosmogonic texts, all dated to around the same time as the Guodian materials. While these texts share some concerns and assumptions, they also disagree and offer conflicting positions. Thus rather than assuming that anything sounding vaguely like the Laozi is saying the same thing in different words, we should be attuned to subtle differences on issues ranging from cosmogony to conceptions of action. We should also allow for the possibility that the Laozi itself incorporates diverse positions. This article analyzes one particular example, the role of “the one” (yi 一) in the Laozi. It argues that the five chapters discussing the one represent an attempt to incorporate what was originally a distinct position that took the one as the ultimate and had no concern with the interdependence of opposites. That position is expressed in the recently discovered Fanwu liuxing.
The metatheoretic formal semantics that we gave in Chapter 12 was rife with talk of functions, like the semantic valuation function for assigning extensions to formulae of . Functions again took center stage in Chapter 19, which discussed intensions as functions from possible worlds onto extensions. Functions, functions, functions.
We have already encountered the de re – de dicto distinction at a number of points in this book. In this section, we will investigate the distinction more carefully, explain methods used to notate it, and develop quantified modal logics that are adequate for arguments involving the new notation.
Some of the best illustrations of the de re – de dicto distinction can be found among sentences of tense logic. For example, consider (S).
(S) The president was a crook.
This sentence is ambiguous. It might be taken to claim of the present president that he (Obama at the time this was written) used to be a crook. On the other hand, it might be read ‘At some time in the past the president (at that time) was a crook’. On this last reading, we are saying that the whole sentence (or dictum, in Latin) ‘the president is a crook’ was true at some past time. This is the de dicto reading of (S). Here both ‘the president’ and ‘is a crook’ are read in the past tense. We can represent this interpretation of (S) by applying the past tense operator P to the sentence ‘the president is a crook’, so that both ‘the president’ and ‘is a crook’ lie in its scope.
P(the president is a crook) de dicto reading of (S)
On the first reading of (S), we are saying a certain thing (in Latin, res) has a past tense property: of having been a crook. This is the de re reading of (S). Here we read ‘the president’ in the present tense, and ‘is a crook’ in the past tense. We can represent this reading by restricting the scope of the past tense operator P to the predicate ‘is a crook’.
the president P(is a crook) de re reading of (S)
The distinction between these two readings of (S) is a crucial one, for given that Obama never was a crook, and that Nixon was, the de dicto version of (S) is true, while the de re version is false.