Learning Analytics (LA) has rapidly expanded through practical and technological innovation, yet its foundational identity has remained theoretically under-specified. This paper addresses this gap by proposing the first axiomatic theory that formally defines the essential structure, scope, and limitations of LA. Derived from the psychological definition of learning and the methodological requirements of LA, the framework consists of five axioms specifying discrete observation, experience construction, state transition, and inference. From these axioms, we derive a set of theorems and propositions that clarify the epistemological stance of LA, including the inherent unobservability of learner states, the irreducibility of temporal order, constraints on reachable states, and the impossibility of deterministically predicting future learning. We further define LA structure and LA practice as formal objects, demonstrating the sufficiency and necessity of the axioms and showing that diverse LA approaches -- such as Bayesian Knowledge Tracing and dashboards -- can be uniformly explained within this framework. The theory provides guiding principles for designing analytic methods and interpreting learning data while avoiding naive behaviorism and category errors by establishing an explicit theoretical inference layer between observations and states. This work positions LA as a rigorous science of state transition systems based on observability, establishing the theoretical foundation necessary for the field's maturation as a scholarly discipline.

Given a raw knowledge in the form of a data table/a decision system, one is facing two possible venues. One, to treat the system as closed, i.e., its universe does not admit new objects, or, to the contrary, its universe is open on admittance of new objects. In particular, one may obtain new objects whose sets of values of features are new to the system. In this case the problem is to assign a decision value to any such new object. This problem is somehow resolved in the rough set theory, e.g., on the basis of similarity of the value set of a new object to value sets of objects already assigned a decision value. It is crucial for online learning when each new object must have a predicted decision value.\ There is a vast literature on various methods for decision prediction for new yet unseen object. The approach we propose is founded in the theory of rough mereology and it requires a theory of sets/concepts, and, we root our theory in classical set theory of Syllogistic within which we recall the theory of parts known as Mereology. Then, we recall our theory of Rough Mereology along with the theory of weight assignment to the Tarski algebra of Mereology.\ This allows us to introduce the notion of a part to a degree. Once we have defined basics of Mereology and rough Mereology, we recall our theory of weight assignment to elements of the Boolean algebra within Mereology and this allows us to define the relation of parts to the degree and we apply this notion in a procedure to select a decision for new yet unseen objects.\ In selecting a plausible candidate which would pass its decision value to the new object, we employ the notion of Vapnik - Chervonenkis dimension in order to select at the first stage the candidate with the largest VC-dimension of the family of its $\varepsilon$-components for some choice of $\varepsilon$.

Coalition logic is a central logic in strategic reasoning studies. In this paper, we first argue that Coalition Logic models, concurrent game models, have three too-strong assumptions. The first one is the independence of agents; that is, the merge of two available joint actions of two disjoint coalitions is always available for the union of the two coalitions. The second one is seriality; that is, coalitions always have available joint actions. The third one is determinism, that is, the grand coalition's joint actions always have a unique outcome. Second, we present a coalition logic based on general concurrent game models, which do not have the three assumptions. We show the completeness of this logic and compare it with Coalition Logic in detail. This logic seems minimal in the context of strategic reasoning.

The widely applied k-means algorithm produces clusterings that violate our expectations with respect to high/low similarity/density and is in conflict with Kleinberg's axiomatic system for distance based clustering algorithms that formalizes those expectations in a natural way. k-means violates in particular the consistency axiom. We hypothesise that this clash is due to the not explicated expectation that the data themselves should have the property of being clusterable in order to expect the algorithm clustering hem to fit a clustering axiomatic system. To demonstrate this, we introduce two new clusterability properties, variational k-separability and residual k-separability and show that then the Kleinberg's consistency axiom holds for k-means operating in the Euclidean or non-Euclidean space. Furthermore, we propose extensions of k-means algorithm that fit approximately the Kleinberg's richness axiom that does not hold for k-means. In this way, we reconcile k-means with Kleinberg's axiomatic framework in Euclidean and non-Euclidean settings. Besides contribution to the theory of axiomatic frameworks of clustering and for clusterability theory, practical contribution is the possibility to construct {datasets for testing purposes of algorithms optimizing k-means cost function. This includes a method of construction of {clusterable data with known in advance global optimum.

Kleinberg's axioms for distance based clustering proved to be contradictory. Various efforts have been made to overcome this problem. Here we make an attempt to handle the issue by embedding in high-dimensional space and granting wide gaps between clusters.

In this note we introduce a novel clustering preserving transformation of cluster sets obtained from k-means algorithm. It may be considered as a contribution towards formulation of clustering axiomatic system. From the practical point of view, this clustering preserving transformation can be used for purposes of: generating new labeled datasets from existent ones, which may be of use in testing algorithms from k-means family in their stability on cluster perturbations which d not change the theoretical clustering, generating new labeled datasets from existent ones, obfuscating sensitive data From the theoretical standpoint, the contribution of this paper consists in proposing a less rigid cluster preserving transformation than centric consistency, known so far as the only cluster preserving transformation for k-means family of algorithms.

Development of new algorithms in the area of machine learning, especially clustering, comparative studies of such algorithms as well as testing according to software engineering principles requires availability of labeled data sets. While standard benchmarks are made available, a broader range of such data sets is necessary in order to avoid the problem of overfitting. In this context, theoretical works on axiomatization of clustering algorithms, especially axioms on clustering preserving transformations are quite a cheap way to produce labeled data sets from existing ones. However, the frequently cited axiomatic system of Kleinberg:2002, as we show in this paper, is not applicable for finite dimensional Euclidean spaces, in which many algorithms like $k$-means, operate. In particular, the so-called outer-consistency axiom fails upon making small changes in datapoint positions and inner-consistency axiom is valid only for identity transformation in general settings. Hence we propose an alternative axiomatic system, in which Kleinberg's inner consistency axiom is replaced by a centric consistency axiom and outer consistency axiom is replaced by motion consistency axiom. We demonstrate that the new system is satisfiable for a hierarchical version of $k$-means with auto-adjusted $k$, hence it is not contradictory. Additionally, as $k$-means creates convex clusters only, we demonstrate that it is possible to create a version detecting concave clusters and still the axiomatic system can be satisfied. The practical application area of such an axiomatic system may be the generation of new labeled test data from existent ones for clustering algorithm testing. %We propose the gravitational consistency as a replacement which does not have this deficiency.

I present the proof of Goedel's First Incompleteness theorem in an intuitive manner, while covering all technically challenging steps. I present generalizations of Goedel's fixed point lemma to two-sentence and multi-sentence versions, which allow proof of incompleteness through circular versions of the liar's paradox. I discuss the relation of Goedel's First and Second Incompletneness theorems to Goedel's Completeness theorems, and conclude with remarks on implications of these results for mathematics, computation, theory of mind and AI.

We propose two new doxastic extensions of fuzzy \L ukasiewicz logic in which their semantics are Kripke-based with both fuzzy atomic propositions and fuzzy accessibility relations. A class of these extensions is equipped with uninformed belief operator, and the other class is based on a new notion of skeptical belief. We model a fuzzy version of muddy children problem and a CPA-security experiment using uniformed belief and skeptical belief, respectively. Moreover, we prove soundness and completeness for both of these belief extensions.

Pairwise comparison matrices often exhibit inconsistency, therefore many indices have been suggested to measure their deviation from a consistent matrix. A set of axioms has been proposed recently that is required to be satisfied by any reasonable inconsistency index. This set seems to be not exhaustive as illustrated by an example, hence it is expanded by adding two new properties. All axioms are considered on the set of triads, pairwise comparison matrices with three alternatives, which is the simplest case of inconsistency. We choose the logically independent properties and prove that they characterize, that is, uniquely determine the inconsistency ranking induced by most inconsistency indices that coincide on this restricted domain. Since triads play a prominent role in a number of inconsistency indices, our results can also contribute to the measurement of inconsistency for pairwise comparison matrices with more than three alternatives.