Sentence examples for equivalences are from inspiring English sources

Again, since weak equivalences are componentwise, we may replace the square with a weakly equivalent one such that (Y rightarrow Y') and (X' rightarrow Y') are fibrations of fibrant objects, and then by (i), (Y_0 rightarrow Y_0'), (X'_0 rightarrow Y'_0), (Y_1 rightarrow Y_1') and (X'_1 rightarrow Y'_1) are also fibrations of fibrant objects.

False, ahistorical equivalences are designed to further double standards.

I'm not saying that any of these equivalences are correct; I am saying, however, that they're basically universal in the minds of most negotiators.

The intuitive connections between some and every noted earlier are reflected in the fact that the following equivalences are valid:(∃x)ϕx ≡ ∼(∀x)∼ϕx (∀x)ϕx ≡ ∼(∃ x)∼ϕx These equivalences remain valid when ϕx is replaced by any wff, however complex; i.e., for any wff α whatsoever,(∃x)α ≡ ∼(∀x)∼α and(∀x)α ≡ ∼(∃ x)∼αare valid.

These equivalences are expressed formally by the validity, again for any wff α, of(∃x)(∃y)α ≡ ∼(∀x)(∀y)∼α and(∀x)(∀y)α ≡ ∼(∃x)(∃y)∼α and by the resulting replaceability anywhere in a wff of (∃x)(∃y) by ∼(∀x)(∀y)∼, or of (∀x)(∀y) by ∼(∃x)(∃y)∼.

Conversion equivalences are kept constant.

Kromer recognized that his generalized protest against equivalences wasn't going to cut much ice.

Equivalences were preserved in majority of aSVRs.

They were supervised by an expert so the confidence in the equivalences is high.

Fast screening methods for non-equivalence are considered.

Linguistic, structural, measurement unit, and full score equivalence are described.