DEFSample Clauses

DEF. 5.5. This paragraph does not entitle either party to any money ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .
DEF. 12 guarantees that there is (at most) one root component Rr in every Gr, r > 0. Since we have infinitely many graphs in (Gr)r>0 but only finitely many processes, there is at least one process p in Rr for infinitely many r. Let r1, r2, . . . be this sequence of rounds. Moreover, let P0 = {p}, and define for each i > 0 the set Pi = Pi−1 ∪ {q : ∃q′ ∈ Pi−1 : q′ ∈ N ri }. Using induction, we will show that |Pk| “ min{n, k + 1} for k “ 0. Consequently, by the end of round rn−1 at latest, p will have causally influenced all processes in Π. Induction base k = 0: |P0| “ min{n, 1} = 1 follows immediately from P0 = {p}. Induction step k → k + 1, k “ 0: First assume that already |Pk| = n “ min{n, k + 1}; since |Pk+1| “ |Pk| = n “ min{n, k + 1}, we are done. Otherwise, consider round rk+1 and |Pk| < n: Since p is in Rrk+1 , there is a path from p to any process q, in particular, to any process q in Π \ Pk ∅. Let (v → w) be an edge on such a path, such that v ∈ Pk and
DEF. A quitclaim deed is a release by the grantor, or conveyor of the deed, of any interest the grantor may have in the property de scribed in the deed. Generally a quitclaim deed relieves the grantor of liability regarding the ownership of theproperty. Thus, the grantor of a quitclaim deed will not be liable to the grantee, or recipient of the deed, if a competing claim to the property is later d iscovered. A quitclaim deed is not a guarantee that the grantor has clear title to theproperty; rather it is a relinquishment of the gra ntor's rights, if any, in the property. By contrast, in a warranty deed the grantor promises that she owns the property with no cloud on the title (that is, no competing claims). The holder of a quitclaim deed receives only the interest owned by the person conveying the deed. If the grantee of a quitclaim de ed learns after accepting the deed that the grantor did not own the property, the grantee may lose theproperty to the true owner. If it turns out that the grantor had only a partial interest in the property, the quitclaim deed xxxxxx holds only that partial interest. Warranty Deed. (not typical , but sometimes seen/used in Western Mass) (def.) A warranty deed generally offers the greatest amount of protection to someone who is purchasing or receiving the title to a piece of real estate (the grantee). A warranty deed includes four basic assurances to the grantee at the time of transaction. The first warranty is that the current owner and seller of the title (the grantor) does in fact own the real estate in fee simple, which assures the grantor has absolute ownership of the property. Second, a warranty deed guarantees that the property is free from any encumbrances (anything that affects or limits the title of the property such as easements or liens) except for those specifically stated in the deed. Third, the warranty deed guarantees that the grantor of the title has the legal right to sell or transfer the property to grantee. Lastly, through the deed, the grantor promises to defend against any legal claims regarding problems with the title that arose not only during the grantor’s ownership period but also prior to that period time.
DEF in.sec 1.01(a)..............def.in.sec.a 2..................xxxxx.xxxx.xxx 2.01...............purch.sale.sec 2.02..................purch.price 2.03......................closing 2.03....................closing.a 2.03(a).................closing.b 2.03(c).................closing.c 2.04............closing.bal.sheet 2.04(a).......closing.bal.sheet.a 2.04(b).......closing.bal.sheet.b 2.04(c).......closing.bal.sheet.c 2.04(d).......closing.bal.sheet.d 2.05.......................adj.pp 2.05(a)..................adj.pp.a 2.05(b)..................adj.pp.b 2.06.......................all.pp
DEF. Let Mn+1(φ) be the proposition that is true at w just in case M0 (Mn(φ)) is G G true at w. G Def. Let ComG(φ) be the proposition that is true at w just in case Mn (φ) is true at w, for all n. Def. Let Hom[Ki(·)] be the proposition that is true at some world w just in case Ki(w) ∈ P(W) and, for every wj ∈ Ki(w), Ki(w) = Ki(wj). · ∈ Then we can show that (i) φ is common knowledge amongst G at w just in case ComG(φ) is true at w and (ii) an agent i A is third-personally introspective at a world w just in case Hom[Ki( )] holds at w.8 Now let [Ki = φ] be the proposition that is true at a world wj just in case Ki(wj) = φ. Given Uncentered Confidants, we have: 7In the case in which φ is an uncentered proposition, we can take Factivity to say: If an agent i knows φ, then φ is true. However, if φ is a centered proposition, we can’t say that such a proposition is true or false simpliciter. Instead, such a proposition will be true relative to some agents and false relative to others. Our formulation, then, is meant to apply when φ is an uncentered proposition and when φ is a centered proposition. Where φ is a centered proposition, i will be mistaken in virtue of believing φ just in case φ is false relative to i. 8See Caie [2015] for the justification of these claims. ⊆ Uncentered Representation: A group of agents G A whose epistemic states are defined over a set of possible worlds propositions are epistemic confidants at a world w just in case ComG([Ki = Ki(w)]) and ComG(Hom[Ki(·)]) hold at w, for each i ∈ G.9 In addition, we have the following theorem: Uncentered Agreement Theorem: Let F be an agreement frame and Pr(·) a probability function on P(W). If, at some w ∈ W, for each i ∈ G ⊆ A, ComG([Ki = Ki(w)]) and ComG(Hom[Ki(·)]) hold, then, for each i, j ∈ G, Pr(·|Ki(w)) = Pr(·|Kj(w)).10 ∈ ⊆ ∈ The key fact underlying this theorem is that if ComG([Ki = Ki(w)]) and ComG(Hom[Ki(·)]) are true at w, for each i G A, then it follows that, for each i, j G, Ki(w) = Kj(w). Given this, the result is obvious. Now, amongst the class of update functions, there will be some that correspond, in a natural way, to probability functions.
DEF. We say that an agent a is first-personally G-introspective just in case, if a’s epistemic state is K, then a first-personally knows that it is commonly known in G that their epistemic state is characterized by K. Consider now the following claim:22 22A few points that are perhaps worth highlighting. First, Group Introspection only provides a necessary condition on a group of agents being epistemic confidants. The proponent of Group Introspection will, I take it, accept that the conditions imposed by Centered Confidants are also necessary for any group of agents to be epistemic confidants. They will, however, deny that these conditions are sufficient. Second, insofar as one is attracted to Group Introspection, there are further conditions involving first- personal higher-order knowledge of one’s own and others epistemic states that one may naturally be inclined to require of a group of epistemic confidants. For example, given Group Introspection, it is also natural to require of a group of epistemic confidants that each a ∈ G be such that, if their epistemic state is characterized G z G z x by K, then, for any n iterations of M0 Ka , Ka({˙z : (M0 Ka )n{˙x : Ka (˙x) = K}}) holds. That is, if a set of agents G are epistemic confidants, then if some member a’s epistemic state is characterized by K, then a will know, in a first-personal way, that each member of G knows that they know that their epistemic state is characterized by K, and a will know, in a first-personal way, that each member of G knows that they know that each member of G knows that they know that their epistemic state is characterized by K, and so on.
DEF students-NOM where 0-xxxxxxxx-XX.XX ‘The students where are (they) studying?’ (Xxxxxxxx, 1993, 243) Xxxxxxxxxxx, 0000, 28), (8).
DEF. Let M0 (φ) be the proposition that is true at w just in case, for every i ∈ G, Ki(w) ⊆ φ.
DEF. Let ComG(φ) be the proposition that is true at ˙q just in case Mn (φ) is true at ˙q, for all n. Def. Let Hom[Ki(·)] be the proposition that is true at some centered world ˙q just in case Ki(˙q) ∈ P(C) and, for every ˙z ∈ Ki(˙q), Ki(˙q) = Ki(˙z). · ∈ Then we can show that (i) φ is common knowledge amongst G at wz just in case ComG(φ) is true at ˙z and (ii) an agent i A is third-personally introspective at wz just in case Hom[Ki( )] holds at ˙z.13 In addition, we can also represent the property of being first-personally introspective in a centered agreement frame. Def. Let CHom[Ki(·)] be the proposition that is true at some centered world ˙q just in case Ki(˙q) ∈ P(C) and Ki(˙q) = Kaz (˙z), for all ˙z ∈ Ki(˙q). Then we can show that an agent i ∈ A is first-personally introspective at wz just in case CHom[Ki(·)] holds at ˙z.14 Now let [Ki = φ] be the proposition that is true at a centered world ˙z just in case Ki(˙z) = φ. Given Centered Confidants, we have: ⊆ Centered Representation: A group of agents G A whose epistemic states are defined over a set of centered worlds propositions are epistemic confidants at a world wz just in case ComG([Ki = Ki(˙z)]), ComG(Hom[Ki(·)]) and ComG(CHom[Ki(·)]) hold at ˙z, for each i ∈ G. In addition, we have the following theorem: Centered Agreement Theorem: Let C be a centered agreement frame. Then there exists some probability function Pr(·) defined over P(C), such that, for any ˙q ∈ C, if every i ∈ G ⊆ A is such that the following propositions are true at ˙q: ComG([Ki = Ki(˙q)]), ComG(Hom[Ki(·)]), ComG(CHom[Ki(·)]), then, for each uncentered proposition ψ and each i, j ∈ G, Pr(ψ|Ki(˙q)) = Pr(ψ|Kj(˙q)).15 P P Given Centered Confidants, then, we can see that Permissible Agreement is compatible Strong Centered Bayesianism. For, given Centered Confidants, we have Centered Representation. And, given Centered Representation, it follows from the Centered Agreement Theorem that, given an algebra (C), there is some update function that is determined by a probability function over this algebra, that ensures that any epistemic confidants, with epistemic and xxxxxx states defined over (C), who update in line with this function will assign the same credence to every uncentered proposition over which their credal states are defined. In addition, we can also see that, given Centered Confidants, Permissible Agreement is compatible with Strong Centered Anti-Bayesianism. For, let pr(·) be an update function that 13Again, see Caie [2015] for t...

Related to DEF

• Schedule of Services Consultant shall perform the Services within the Term of this Agreement, in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and in accordance with any other completion schedule or milestones which may be separately agreed upon in writing by the Parties. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant’s conformance with the Schedule, City shall respond to Consultant’s submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of City, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services.

• Additional Description If any additional information would help describe the property, include it here. Step 3 – Identify Lease Term 7.

• General Scope of Services Contractor promises and agrees to furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply professional services, as more particularly described in Exhibit B (Statement of Work) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (collectively “Services”). All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Contract, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.

• Distance Education 7.13.1 Expanding student access, not increasing productivity or enrollment, shall be the primary determining factor when a decision is made to schedule a distance education course. There will be no reduction in force of faculty (as defined in Article XXIII of this Agreement) as a result of the District’s participation in distance education.

• Bilingual Pay Where the Employer currently pays bilingual pay or bonuses, it shall continue to do so. The Employer retains discretion to initiate bilingual pay or bonuses. The minimum bilingual bonus or hourly equivalent is \$25 per pay period. The Employer may not require an employee to use bilingual skills without paying the appropriate bonus or pay. This does not apply to employees where such skills are in the classification specification.

• Service Descriptions Credit Card processing services: Global Direct’s actions to the appropriate card associations and/or issuers (e.g., Visa, MasterCard, Diners, Discover); settlement; dispute resolution with cardholders’ banks; and transaction-related reporting, statements and products. Debit/ATM Processing Services: Global Direct has connected to the following debit card networks (“Networks”): Accel, AFFN, Interlink, MAC, Maestro, NYCE, Pulse, Star, and Tyme. Global Direct will provide Merchant with the ability to access the Networks that Global Direct has connected to for the purpose of authorizing debit card transactions at the point of sale from cards issued by the members of the respective Networks. Global Direct will provide connection to such Networks, terminal applications, settlement and reporting activities. EBT Transaction Processing Services: Global Direct offers electronic interfaces to Electronic Benefits Transfer (“EBT”) networks for the processing of cash payments or credits to or for the benefit of benefit recipients (“Recipients”). Global Direct will provide settlement and switching services for various Point of Sale transactions initiated through Merchant for the authorization of the issuance of the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services (“FNS”) food stamp benefits (“FS Benefits”) and/or government delivered cash assistance benefits (“Cash Benefits, ”with FS Benefits, “Benefits”) to Recipients through the use of a state-issued card (“EBT Card”). With respect to Visa and MasterCard products, Merchant agrees to pay and Merchant's account(s) will be charged pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement for any additional fees incurred as a result of Merchant's subsequent acceptance of transactions with any Visa or MasterCard product that it has not elected to accept.

• Brief Description The Guide to Custody in World Markets (annually) An overview of safekeeping and settlement practices and procedures in each market in which State Street Bank and Trust Company offers custodial services. Global Custody Network Review (annually) Information relating to the operating history and structure of depositories and subcustodians located in the markets in which State Street Bank and Trust Company offers custodial services, including transnational depositories. Global Legal Survey (annually) With respect to each market in which State Street Bank and Trust Company offers custodial services, opinions relating to whether local law restricts (i) access of a fund’s independent public accountants to books and records of a Foreign Sub- Custodian or Foreign Securities System, (ii) the Fund’s ability to recover in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of a Foreign Sub-Custodian or Foreign Securities System, (iii) the Fund’s ability to recover in the event of a loss by a Foreign Sub- Custodian or Foreign Securities System, and (iv) the ability of a foreign investor to convert cash and cash equivalents to U.S. dollars. Subcustodian Agreements (annually) Copies of the subcustodian contracts State Street Bank and Trust Company has entered into with each subcustodian in the markets in which State Street Bank and Trust Company offers subcustody services to its US mutual fund clients. Network Bulletins (weekly): Developments of interest to investors in the markets in which State Street Bank and Trust Company offers custodial services. Foreign Custody Advisories (as necessary): With respect to markets in which State Street Bank and Trust Company offers custodial services which exhibit special custody risks, developments which may impact State Street’s ability to deliver expected levels of service.

• White Pages Listings 5.1 BellSouth shall provide <<customer_name>> and their customers access to white pages directory listings under the following terms:

• LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Following is a list of attachments to this Amendment, including all Schedules and Exhibits. Any future added attachment must include a dated Amendment or provision referencing the Agreement and must be executed by all parties. Exhibit A2 (signatures on next page) With due authority from our respective companies, we hereby signify our consent to this Agreement by signing below, SVTC Technologies, LLC Signature: /s/ Xxxxx X. Xxxxx Printed Name: Xxxxx X. Xxxxx Title: CFO Date: 10/23/09 Customer: BioNanomatrix, Inc. Signature: /s/ Xxxxxxxx X. XxXxxxxx Printed Name: Xxxxxxxx X. XxXxxxxx Title: VP – Finance & Administration Date: 10/22/2009 BioNanomatrix AMEND462693-002 Exhibit A2 Commercial Terms For BioNanomatrix, Inc.’s Revised Nanochannel Array Development Project START DATE: 10-19-2009 DURATION: Six (6) Months* SVTC proposes the date above on which SVTC will begin providing the following services under the Agreement (“Start Date”). *Project Duration commences upon the (“Start Date”) and shall continue for six months unless extended as provide in section 6, 2), below.

• Investment Description Appointment The Fund desires to employ the capital of the Fund by investing and reinvesting in investments of the kind and in accordance with the limitations specified in its Articles of Incorporation, as may be amended from time to time, and in the Fund's Prospectus(es) and Statement(s) of Additional Information as from time to time in effect (the "Prospectus" and "SAI," respectively), and in such manner and to such extent as may from time to time be approved by the Board of Directors of the Fund. Copies of the Fund's Prospectus and SAI have been or will be submitted to the Adviser. The Fund desires to employ and hereby appoints the Adviser to act as investment adviser to the Fund. The Adviser accepts the appointment and agrees to furnish the services for the compensation set forth below.