text:
Template talk:Mathematics bookshelf

I wonder if the book Primary School Mathematics should be on this shelf? (I know it is incomplete). I'm not sure how to do that, or if what the policy would be, but it seems weird the that High School one is here but the Primary School one is not.
 * Sure; put it on this page. It definitely needs the attention. BTW, don't worry about incompleteness; most of the books on this site are less than 1/3 is there. - SamE 03:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Organization
This template doesnt have any kind of subject-wise organization the way other bookshelf templates do. Should we add some? We could break it down into levels: Early, High-School, College, Graduate, etc... --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Mathematics bookshelf


text:
User:JRM

I'm Joost R. Meerten. "It Came From Wikipedia!" My Wikipedia user page is here.

Foci
This space is reserved for reminding me where I'm at and what I'm doing there (something my watchlist can't exactly do). Eventually, it could be of use to you, as well. Once I figure out how to make those neat boxes, that is.

 * Computer Science bookshelf
 * The organization is haphazard, to say the least. We should look at a CS library (any will do, really) and steal ideas from them on organization.
 * School of Computer Science
 * Work on a basic curriculum.

Mission statement

 * To contribute to anything related to Computer Science; to turn the Wikibook section into an organized library/study hall/university for computer science.
 * To keep reminding people that this is a wiki, and that there's no one true way of organizing information, nor should there be.
 * To keep reminding people that this is not Wikipedia, and that Wikibooks should be structured (but since it is a wiki, structured in many ways).
 * To explore and establish connections with other disciplines.
 * There's CS and mathematics, CS and physics, CS and linguistics and CS and psychology, to name a few. Clearly, I'm not talking about people just using computers, but using them in ways that extend both the CS and the other discipline in directions that wouldn't exist without CS.

Personal background
I have a bachelor's degree in CS and am close to getting my master's, so I consider myself not completely ignorant on the topic -- that said, I don't consider myself the world's foremost expert either. :-) My favorite topics include compilers, formal correctness, computational complexity and with a more mathematical flavor, proof checking (in various lambda calculi). And I'm not completely devoid of practical knowledge, either. :-)

Availability
I wish I could devote lots of time, but alas, I'm quite busy right now getting my master's, working part-time and oh, did I mention I'm going to move soon? You can expect some batch editing from me, and don't be upset if I don't react right away -- or even for a few days. That said, I do make a point of checking up on the wikisomethings once a day, even if I can't do much. I have a talk page, use it!

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:JRM


text:
User talk:JRM

Congratulations, you've reached my Talk page. Actually, this is just here so my user page doesn't make an ass of itself claiming that there is a Talk page, even when, you know, technically, there isn't. The first one to put a comment on here is kindly asked to delete this paragraph. --JRM 15:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:JRM


text:
Canadian Property Law/Real Property

Introduction: the evolution of common law
To understand real property in Canada or any Commonwealth common law jurisdiction requires some archaic terminology that makes perfect sense only in an historical context: in the Middle Ages, the king technically owned all the land in England, which his "court" (the King with the visible support or consent of the nobles who lived at court) gave or rented out in large parcels to his most trusted barons (or "lords") in return for keeping him in power. Those with "title" (meaning both land and rank) let peasants live on his land and protected them; in return, this "land lord" (a knight or baron or higher "title") extracted heavy rents from them. This system binding the peasants to the barons was known as the "land tenure" system: The peasant was a "tenant" of the baron, who was his "land lord". This system was the basis for the proper ordering of society.

Therefore, it was in the interest of the king and the barons that everyone knew at all times who had "seisin" of the land, i.e., which peasants had to pay rent to which lord for which piece of land. Any land where this was unclear was "wasted". The Medieval rules of real property transfer were therefore very strict in ensuring that it was always very clear who was receiving the land; any lack of clarity ("abeyance of seisin") was forbidden, and the transfer was "null and void". This disadvantaged the illiterate farmers who could pay for land they did not receive, if the transfer they had paid for did not satisfy this strict criteria, so this required - then as now - legal advice from a neutral third party educated in Latin who could "plead" the case at "court".

Land rights did not expire and could be enforced at any time against anyone using any land, however innocently, who did not hold a "title" to it from the "court" (making them the "true" owner). This further disadvantaged the illiterate freeholder who might improve land and then be evicted from it, so verifying that one's predecessor owned land that was sold (a "title search") became necessary.

The medieval English system had been overlaid by Norman kings on the older (Anglo-Saxon) system of freeholds, in which persons actually using land had considerable rights to continue using it, as long as they met obligations to their lords, and in which most people were actually freeholders. These older "common law" authorities' decisions were cited by way of pleading to the king (at his "court") that he was being unfair compared to those prior magistrates/courts, even back to Romans (most persons and all lawyers having a fairly good education in the classics, Latin and Roman law). It was a point of pride among rulers to be favourably viewed as behaving like good rulers, like Augustus Caesar or Marcus Aurelius, and not like bad Roman emperors, like Caligula or Commodus. The difference was largely viewed as behaving erratically versus prudently following wise "precedents".

After the chaos of King Henry II's reign and his civil war against his own sons, many lords having direct experience with better-ordered Mediterranean kingdoms and a stricter rule of law imposed by Islam on Arabs (that relied also on precedent jurisprudence or "fiqh"), began to demand somewhat more predictable rule than simply hoping or expecting that the king would follow a wise precedent. In this they had much support from their knights and especially Saxon lords, knights & freeholders, some of whom had been forced into hiding or rebellion by John's rule, i.e. the "Robin Hood" legend.

The 1215 Magna Carta was, essentially, the feudal barons imposing on King John the same well known lists of rights - and especially real property rights - that older Roman, Saxon and Scandanavian ("Danelaw") rules (back to King Alfred) had protected for Anglo-Saxon freeholders prior to Norman feudalism. John signed it only unwillingly and after putting himself in "vassalage" to the Pope to bolster his claim that to support inherent rights of nobles or freeholders was to diminish recourse of those without land to the Crown (or "court") and Church. John tried to rescind it after signing it, also, with the Church's backing. However, the Magna Carta stood, and guaranteed a more even and fair hearing of the "common law" arguments, which had been well recorded since Aethelred and Alfred, and which established a predictable body of law documented in Latin which all lawyers knew.

The vast majority of "court" hearings were between the elite "land lords". But balance of power in English society slowly shifted. The rights the barons had guaranteed themselves, including basic rights to property, eventually were recognized for most English freeholders and farmers. These argued "in the common law" before the "court", or in "appeal" to the "Crown" which had already ruled against them. Like the Church's parallel "canon" law, laws were imposed top-down on the public by literate persons with access to money and powerful people. Access to legal assistance for a price (the legal profession) refined and improved the documentation of previous precedents and made it much simpler to argue "cases" at "court". For five centuries, power shifted slowly from nobles with "titles" to judges or "magistrates" - final rulings eventually shifted from Crown to a panel of Law Lords, who to this day sit in the House of Lords, and not in the Crown's "court".

By the mid-17th century the House of Commons (the English legislature) and the common law it upheld and modified, were the pre-eminent power in England, using which Cromwell deposed and executed the King Charles I. Cromwell was a mere member of the House of Commons at the time, not even a Lord or Minister. A long process of subordinating lords, nobles and Crown to the "commons" was completed.

After the "Restoration" of Charles II, and especially after the invitations of William of Orange and then later King George I of the Habsburgs to take the throne, Crown power was confined to the conduct of war and diplomacy. It had almost no effect on daily dealings in land and in property, which continued to be governed by the same "common law" and judicial principles for nearly 1000 years as of that time, since the Saxon invaders from Germany had reconciled theirs & Roman laws.

Quebec's civil code
In France, where the very elite top-down Norman system had come from originally in 1066, a quite different judicial history led slowly to pre-eminence of the Roman Catholic Church and to various means of dispute resolution and judicial principles of logic (that were far less governed by old authority and precedent). After the French Revolution the Napoleonic "civil code" was adopted in Quebec, as it retained control of its provincial law under the British Empire after 1769. This law was retained through Confederation in 1867 not directly modified until the 1981 Constitution that limited application of the common and civil law (very little) with modern human rights limits. To this day, the Quebec civil code invokes principles rather than authorities to make major decisions. In this respect, it echoes the ancien regime French and Norman courts acting as "nobles" with a special obligation to others in society to make fair decisions and exercise power for common good.

Quebec real estate is governed by the civil code, not the English common law. There are specific differences, most notably the role of the surveyor. On some matters, common law jurisdictions have experimented with civil-code-like rules, generally failing to make them stick across the country. The civil law principle of "interversion," as defined in article 923 of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCO), apparently developed into a non-common-law-like test called the "Inconsistent Use Test (IUT)" [MH Lubetsky, 2009]. This was briefly popular in Ontario but now largely abandoned, and never applied to private land in most common law jurisdictions.

A more important and pronounced difference is the role of the professional land surveyor. In Quebec the civil process of le bornage is a mandatory arbitration of boundaries that any landowner can impose on an abutting landowner. It is resolved by a surveyor hired in common who is responsible to mediate their boundary dispute. This is utterly unlike the common law doctrines of acquiescence, estoppel, possession, and primacy of agreements clearly visible on the ground over deeds on paper.

Civil vs. common law, and their common influences
Civil law bears slightly more resemblance to Church canon law, in arguing from basic principles of safety, fairness and closure, rather than from authorities to decisively settle cases by precedent. Both evolved after the Crusades also under the strong influence of Arab universities and learning, which employed citation indexes, publishing, and the process of arguing in detail every aspect of cases to find a correct decision and correct criteria to decide it (the "ijtihad"), all of which had been initially part of religious obligation. Oxford was based on the great Toledo university in Muslim Spain, where every library in Europe sent to, to get true copies of any classical texts. To this day, scholars wear caps and gowns to demonstrate they have studied the ways of the Arabs, as in the Middle Ages, even the Crusades, this was a sign of a learned and well-travelled person.

It would be incorrect to consider either civil or common law to derive solely from English, French or other narrow tradition. Both absorbed and copied at least some Roman, Catholic, Scandanavian ("Danelaw" and Norse "Norman"), German (or "Saxon") and Arab/Muslim principles and procedures. In many ways the common law was simply the codification of these principles into Latin and casebooks.

The highest compliment to the common law however is that no one ever gives it up by choice. When the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against the British Crown in 1776, and subsequently as the British Empire devolved, all the former colonies kept the English common law, even Hong Kong in 1997. The common law principles of contract law are generally upheld in commercial codes all over the world.

Canadian law is unique in having issues settled in both common law and civil code by the Supreme Court of Canada, of which three of nine justices are from Quebec. Justices refer in civil cases including real property law to the appropriate tradition, resolving conflicts of laws and 'human rights' related disputes arising from the Charter guarantee (which rarely apply in real estate or estate law, but not never). Treaties and human rights law are not directly pleadable in court but the courts have adopted a premise of continuing to evolve the common law in compliance with these.

Basic common law real estate principles
When dealing in real estate, the most valuable investment and highest risk most persons ever take, it is extremely important to understand the roles played by various professionals and documents, and the terminology that applies in title disputes, which derives from the English history above.

role of the surveyor
In the common law process, the surveyor applies the doctrines of precedent and stare decisis, traces boundary lines based on evidence on the ground or in source documents, but has a role explicitly restricted to presenting that evidence honestly: “The surveyor has no power to decide the location of the boundary or re-survey and can only express an opinion as to where the boundary is to be found based upon a search for and study of evidence he/she has found in the field, testimony of others and in searches within the appropriate registry offices, Crown records and other offices of record ” SLC 8.21  The surveyor is an expert witness only, not a mediator and can have no valid opinion on whether one boundary line is "as good as" another one under the law. A hierarchy of validity applies to the "boundary evidence on the ground matching the chain of title documents to a specific tolerance of accuracy"

title insurance and location certificates
"Title insurance is insurance for the title and does not necessarily provide protection in regards to the extent of title or location of boundaries encroachments or improvements made on lands of others."

"The Location Certificate is only intended to the party for whom it was originally prepared for. Depending on the age of the certificate, improvements and encroachments could have taken place without the purchaser knowing. By accepting the old Surveyor Location Certificates the purchases are taking on this risk perhaps unknowingly. These risks could have a significant cost should an improvement to the property purchased be encroaching on land of others and or others encroaching on the purchased land."

When faced with the unknown encroachment or improvement issue the problem is usually rectified by:
 * 1. Removing the improvement from the neighbours land;
 * 2. Ignoring the encroachment;
 * 3. Taking a legal position with the encroaching neighbour;
 * 4. Subdividing/consolidating solutions"

lex situs
The distinction regarding Quebec illustrates a principle. In modern and medieval times, it was always necessary that land be governed by the law, literally, of the land: lex situs is the legal principle that whatever other rules or laws or wills or contracts govern deals or property, that the law where the land is located must always govern all disposal of real property. This includes for instance whether a foreign will is respected or not, who inherits land intestate, what procedures are required to prove or transfer ownership, and how easements and leases are agreed and expire. To permit laws of many places to govern land would result in chaos and unpredictability.

Real property law is complex and there are in all Canadian provinces several ways to claim title in land or the right to use land. These are curtailed drastically after death or for absent persons out of possession, and extincted entirely for persons who have clearly neglected their land rights for a "statutory period" after which those land rights no longer exist, regardless of a paper deed.

landlords: the "right of entry and distress"
In all common law jurisdictions, a "true owner" or "land lord" with the support of a "court" in the form of a "paper title" (equivalent in the Middle Ages to a noble or lord or freeholding landowner) has a "right of entry and distress" (i.e. a right to inspect and evict) a "possessor" (tenant, serf or squatter) who is the "owner" (not "true owner") under the common law.

The common law evolved, as its name suggests, from appeals to the king (and his "court") by the so-called "common" man (who was generally illiterate and had no paper title to the land he possessed) in direct opposition and conflict with feudal lords (or "land lords") who exchanged paper titles and paid taxes to the king on land they had cheated illiterate freeholding peasants out of. Two different paths to claim title existed - and were only reconciled in the late 19th and early 20th century by modern laws. Thus the distinction between "owner" (actual physical possessor and "owner" in common law) and "true owner" (a paper title holder entitled to enforce his rights via the courts to evict the possessor and "not true" owner). And, the general weakness of payment of taxes in title claims, as this was always the first argument advanced by nobles against peasants and usually the first to be disregarded on the grounds that the king didn't agree to back a border or take a side in a dispute merely because someone had been the first in line to pay those taxes - in practice, usually the person with the weaker claim would make a point to pay them and so claim.

The Crown, then as now, was always mindful of the need to retain popular support against the nobles (or "land lords") and to therefore be perceived as acting fairly and in accord with "common law" of their ancestors back to Roman times, on principles recognized by merchants, the Church, and envoys. Wars of succession were always justified by lengthy legal arguments (as in Shakespeare's Henry V) to retain legitimacy in the eyes of the Church, and of foreign courts who would recognize a ruler - or not. Even a "right of entry and distress" to a whole kingdom was governed by specific laws no ruler wanted to be seen breaking. Pleas against such rights by current rulers became common.

limitations: "there is more injustice than justice in old claims"
In part due to high level pleadings of limits of rights to claim whole kingdoms, by late medieval times, the right to enforce land rights in perpetuity was abolished as unfair and in clear conflict with the common law and civil order: Enforcing such rights was "barred" after a certain period, initially a hundred years, then sixty (and in modern times to forty, twenty, ten!). The legal principle says: there is more injustice than justice in old claims, and it still holds today.

Modern law continues to use the old terms. In all (nine) common law provinces and the territories, the possessor "owner" (not the paper title holding "true owner") charges anyone claiming a right of entry with trespass. Any paper title held by a "true owner" is a defense against trespass charges.

This defense is not allowed ("barred") if the limitations period on claiming such a right of entry has expired. This is ten years in some provinces (Ontario, Albert), twenty in others (Nova Scotia) with special extensions for mentally incompetent landowners. If the deed is no longer good, a new certificate of title will be awarded to the possessor who has been recognized as the "true" owner. If the deed remains good or partially good to claim some of the land, other legislation (typically called a "marketable titles act" or under inheritance a "succession act" or "intestate succession act" or "wills act") will determine if the possessor retains a partial share of it. They might also retain possession of lands that were never on the deed, or not provably on the deed. If the land rights are split, other legislation (such as a "partition act") and regulations (such as the rules of intestate accounting and tenant-in-common reconciliation of cost of improvements under a partition in equity, and etc.) establish who owes who money or equity, who has the right to demand sale (if anyone) or to occupy. All of this is entirely governed by the province where the land is even if the land right passed by will in another province, based on relationships elsewhere (for instance, a marriage) that were interpreted in the local law (for instance, to invalidate a will).

The courts can in serious disputes where partition is impractical order that land be sold, forcing both parties to bid to buy it, i.e. buy each other out. This is rare and usually follows a trial in which the parties have proven totally unable to agree on facts, prevented financing, and so on.

"possession is nine-tenths of the law"
There is a very strong bias in favour of status quo situations the courts are hesitant to undo, so persons in possession have many more rights and paths to claim that the status quo is just and fair and "perfect" their rights, than do persons not in possession to evict them and claim or sell land. Thus the popular saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Only a person with a clear and stronger paper title than a person who has none will generally be able to evict from the land, and it typically takes more than 2/3 ownership of an indivisible parcel of land to force its sale.

Accordingly very many persons own shares of land they cannot use, sell, lease, contract or deal in, and in some cases their heirs may continue to own marginal shares for generations without such use.

All this is by intention: The common law evolved to enable persons to remain on land, using it, in preference to permitting persons who had proven they would remain absent for long periods, permit squatting, etc.. The Crown benefits when persons it can dispossess, charge taxes, and whose names it knows are in possession of land by paper title. When a law-abiding landowner dies, it wants a long list of successors in a clear order of primacy, just as a noble "title" would pass by clear rules.

Failing however any family member coming forward, the Crown would rather grant title to a possessor who acts like an owner (see adverse possession below), than risk rebellion by taking land away and granting it to a long absent owner who didn't improve it. At the same time, property rights in land must be stable enough that paper title retains value and taxes are worth paying to protect it.

"action to recover any land"
Some provinces have become extremely strict about limitations and overturned much older laws to enforce more certainty on real estate transactions. In Ontario, legislation barring all "action to recover any land" more than ten years after the right to claim that land accrues, has been very strictly interpreted to:
 * 1) . bar any claim to recover land when a separation or divorce happened more than ten years earlier
 * 2) . bar any use of Statute of Frauds / of Elizabeth to annul a land transfer more than ten years old
 * 3) . extend claims in land arising from contracts or wills to ten years instead of the more usual two

It remains unsettled if this inhibits persons living in Ontario, or claiming based on relationships in Ontario, or wills in Ontario, from claiming land in other provinces without such strict limits - to do so would likely require a separate proceeding to recognize the will and then claim land in that province through its probate process, risking challenge by anyone with ten years' possession.

Where a greater claim would be available through the Ontario law but where Ontario law would bar it on limitations, or where an Ontario relationship or contract is the basis for a claim that would be too old to enforce in Ontario, the courts may find it hard to justify allowing such a claim even in a province with a generally longer or looser limitations period - given in Ontario it would fail.

Type of estates
As English society evolved, the "incidents of tenure" (i.e., obligations to the lord) became regularized, and decreased over time. By the time Canada inherited British property law, the only incident of tenure left was "Escheat", that is, when a tenancy ends, the land reverts back to the lord. Even today, when someone dies without an heir, their land becomes property of the Crown (i.e., the government).

With the passage of the Tenures Abolition Act in 1660, although all land was still technically owned by the Crown, peasants could buy and sell their rights to the land they were living on, as well as pass it on by will or by gift. This type of property right became known as an "estate in free and common soccage" or a "free estate". This is why property rights over land are known as "real estate".

An "estate", in English medieval legal parlance, was an amount of time over which one held property rights. There are three types of estate: Fee simple, fee tail and life estate.

Fee Simple
This is the most prevalent type of common law estate. It is what most people think of when they speak of "owning" land. Although the land is technically owned by the Crown, the holder of fee simple can use the land, exclude others from it, and dispose of it.

Under fee simple, the rights to land transfer automatically from the holder of the fee simple to his heir. The holder of the rights in fee simple can grant the land to someone other than his heir. In order to do this, he must use the phrase to [the new owner] and his heirs. Any other phraseology will not legally transfer fee simple by grant. It will instead be regarded as a "life estate" (see below).

Life Estate
The other main type of estate is the life estate. Very simply, this means that someone holds the rights to the land for the duration of his life, after which it reverts back to the owner in fee simple or his heirs. For instance, an elderly landowner might remarry late in life. He may then wish to leave the estate to his new wife for the remainder of her life; when she dies, the land will revert to his heirs, rather than her heirs.

There is no particular phraseology required to grant a life estate. Something such as "to X for life" is usually sufficient. If the phrase "to X and his heirs" is not used, then the transfer is presumed to be a life estate.

Fee Tail
Fee tail is a rare estate, abolished in Canada everywhere except for Manitoba, in which only the lineal heir may inherit land. One can only transfer one's property rights in the land for as long as one lives; afterwards, the property rights revert to one's lineal descendents. This limits how land can be bought and sold, therefore reducing the value of the land. It is relevant to note that section 30(4) of The Law of Property Act in Manitoba while not abolishing the fee tail entirely, does prohibit the conversion of an estate in fee simple into any limited fee or fee tail.

Grants and Wills
Grants of land were regarded with suspicion by common law courts (why would anyone give away their land, which was their main source of income?). That is why it became difficult to grant land in fee simple. The words "to X and his heirs" became absolutely necessary to make such a grant possible. Even the words "to X in fee simple" was not good enough.

will interpretation
Wills were interpreted much more flexibly. Legislation ensured this. A provable intention of the testator is usually the decisive factor - as in most wills challenges - for a judge in deciding whether the land was given in fee simple or as a life estate, or in trust for some other purpose.

However, the evidence admissible to prove intention is quite narrow and usually restricted to the "indirect" evidence, that is, not notes made specifically about the will, but about relationships and beliefs and concerns the testator had that guided their choices regarding their heirs & lands.

Canadian law has generally followed Lubberts Estate 2012 - an Alberta case - in setting aside any will where the testator's intent was not to disinherit but the narrowly interpreted wording of the will suggests it is - or has created an "equivocation" open to arguing the matter either way, in which case the evidence admissible is much broader. The Canadian courts generally prefer to find partial intestacy rather than discard entire wills, with exceptions being those provinces that generally apply stricter standards to foreign (including other provinces') wills, and where overtly admitted racist or noxious ideological goals admitted in writing had guided the choice of heirs, and thus it would be against the public interest to permit the testator's intention to stand.

imperfect title
When property owners die, often title issues come to light that were hidden, concealed, confused or in error. In most Canadian provinces, certain important rights of landowners die with them, such as the right to make any new claim in land to perfect an imperfect border (allowing such claims is generally deemed to violate the rules of reliability - since the testator cannot make a specific claim on their own behalf about their intent or purpose and cannot be cross-examined about these - and of necessity - since the testator being dead cannot have any vital interest left to protect).

Like deeded, surveyed, perfected claims in land, mere possession of land can be passed on to heirs, explicitly in wills or grants. However, the land must be possessed continuously for such claims to be good, so if the landowner is absent and merely had a claim in the past, the right would not be continued by their paper heirs, but by any actual possessor they had left in control of the land. Only if they had a mature right in land prior to death that could have been claimed without that possessor, and had claimed the intent to possess it by affidavit and been subject to examination by hostile parties, and had agreement with that possessor under no mistake to possess on behalf of the estate so as to ensure continuity to the date of claim, could an absent testator's estate be in a good position to claim lands to which it had a weak title. This right is particularly weak against common or public land, which have longer limitations and more difficult tests to pass to possess.

Adverse possession
As in medieval times, any distinction between who holds land on paper and who actually controls it is undesirable: Property taxes, capital gains taxes, insurance liability, and other modern rules cannot be properly enforced if someone is a "bare trustee" holding title for others or a "squatter" inhabiting it without the obligations of title holders.

Conditions for Adverse Possession
Actual and exclusive possession: is a question of fact. Things to consider are: surveyed boundaries, construction of a fence, construction of permanent improvements; Payment of taxes or fees is not generally considered an act of possession unless no one has occupied the lands at all, or they are remote and not amenable to occupation, and owners would not occupy them to use them.

Open and notorious possession: is possession which is not secretive. If the true owner were to visit the area he/she should have knowledge of the possessory facts. If any improvements are going on, the owner is also obligated to make third parties aware of his or her ownership, and not act in such a way as to deceive or acquiesce silently to occupation, lest a proprietary estoppel apply to prevent evicting persons who improved lands under deceit, and may be entitled to remain using them.

Continuous possession: Refers to the statutory time period. An interruption in adverse possession will restart the count. What is deemed an interruption varies, but generally anything more than a "mere visit" by a true owner will restart it, and that owner is also deemed to be in possession if there is any period of non-occupation by other possessors. This however does not apply in most Canadian provinces to seasonally used property, which if visited every year are deemed possessed. However if even one year is missed, such an absence of 18-23 months will interrupt the possession.

Even if no one party has sufficient tenure to claim possessory title in their own right, the paper (or "true") owner may still be barred from entry, if several squatters, even those with no privity with respect to each other and no agreement to pass on possession, occupied the land continuously. Provinces vary with respect to the privity they require, but those that grant title immediately on success of a real estate limitations action, generally also have looser requirements as to privity, and would require a subsequent quieting action or permit only civil claims to recover money, not land, by any person who had contributed to the possession but not been present at the end to claim. The general rule is that only the last person in a sequence of squatters "tacking" has any rights.

Exclusivity is an important attribute of possession: persons generally cannot occupy on behalf of each other except by explicit agreement, persons may occupy against their co-tenants-in-common (but not against joint tenants), and squatters must claim in sequence, not in parallel. Only if one of the squatters has pretended to be the owner or mistaken himself or herself for the owner, would the other squatters be freed of the necessity to gain peaceable agreement to continue their possession, and of the necessity to prove they had adversely excluded the prior squatters and the title holder.

Persons within families generally have each other's permission to occupy, and only if there is some serious and consistent and persistent mistake or deception of title, or some open and overt serious dispute, would it be likely that a claim of possession by one person against their family succeeds.

'Hostile' possession: Does not imply violence. It is merely possession which is against the true owner’s will; Threats or use of violence will generally prevent a claim of adverse possession.

Any type of agreement between the possessor and the true owner will also prevent a claim of adverse possession - however, both parties must actually know who the true (paper title) owner is, as it is not possible for both parties to have agreed when there is a mutual or unilateral mistake re who is the owner; Even an unknowing agreement with a true owner, made unknowingly, would not bar a claim, but could (if the owner deceived the possessor) constitute a proprietary estoppel to prevent the owner re-claiming land after encouraging the possessor to improve it. Generally, the onus of proving possession is adverse does not apply under mutual mistake, nor do some other rules such as the inconsistent use test (in jurisdictions where it applies); An agreement also can only be binding with respect to what the owner owns, not any additional or adjacent possessed lands - a possessor may not be obligated to claim & remit to an owner simply because he had an agreement that respected other lands, even if the deeded and possessory lands had changed hands in past together.

Limitations on private authority
Certain types of contracts cannot be agreed by private parties. For instance, contracts to break the criminal code, e.g. a lease requiring the use of a building for illegal purposes would not be binding and might be set aside entirely, leaving the owner vulnerable to a claim of ownership by possession.

Remainder rules
A "remainder" is a right in land after a life tenure or other guaranteed tenancy has expired.

1) No remainders after a grant in fee simple

2) A remainder must always be supported by a precedent freehold estate

3) The benefit of a condition subsequent cannot be enjoyed by a stranger

Rule against perpetuities
The rule against perpetuities is a rule in property law which prohibits a contingent grant or will from vesting outside a certain period of time. If there is a possibility of the estate vesting outside of the period, regardless how remote, the whole interest is void, and is stricken from a grant. The rule is concerned with the utility of unused property and tries to prevent people from tying up assets for too long a period of time—a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand".

Some provinces, notably Nova Scotia, have relaxed the rule but require refreshing the ownership rights every 21 years as if all lands were disposed of, taxes paid, and recovered by the trust. Under those conditions, a trust can be perpetual. However, Nova Scotia simultaneously made it far easier to challenge the terms of a trust even if one beneficiary is entirely against such changes.

Tenants in Common
The normal and default form of concurrent estate is tenants-in-common. When persons inherit land, they normally inherit it under this form of concurrency unless it is left to them as joint tenants. Even so it is difficult to retain joint tenancy.

Tenants in common each own a divisible and saleable share of land, and may deal in it regardless of the rights of others, though the ability to make use of the land may be limited. It typically takes between 60% and 75% of the equity in land to sell it, and that only if the land is not divisible or partitionable. When a tenant in common dies, his or her heirs inherit the land intestate or by will.

Joint Tenancy
Joint tenancy is a "last man standing" relationship. When a joint tenant dies, the land reverts to the other joint tenants, without reference to their will or intestate succession. Joint tenancy is usually applied between spouses, and it must be explicit in a deed. Even so, it is easily broken: Joint tenancy becomes a tenant in common relationship automatically if either party has any private dealings to sell or even expresses any intent to call for valuation of "their share" without prior joint agreement. Joint tenancy must come into effect at once and simultaneously with a common instrument like a new deed, it must remain a consultative and not rules-bound relationship where no division of the use of the land is in effect and it remains wholly available to both parties at all times. Joint tenancy comes to an end for both parties at once, when either deals independently.

Adverse possession follows a rule similar to joint tenancy, insofar as a series of "squatters" that are each in possession in sequence for the "statutory period" required to exclude a "true" or paper owner, may (even without "privity" passed in deed from one to the next) enable the last one in the sequence (when the rights finally "ripen" or "mature") to claim the entire value of the property "by tacking" those "credits" onto his own. However, adverse possession must be exclusive, so is most similar to joint tenancy under mutual mistake: a final possessor had accepted permission from someone with no right to give any or a right inferior to their own - which permission is thus invalid. Realizing the mistake, this final possessor need only 1. exclude the party they mistook for the true owner, or exclude them or their estate from taking possessory actions that compete 2. not acknowledge the true owner they have recently discovered, 3. possess with intent in their own right, to retain a right of non-will non-intestate inheritance similar to a joint tenant. However, this right must be proven and unlike joint tenancy the onus is against such a possessor, especially to prove the mistake regarding title, and that they never acknowledged the true owner in any way, or were entirely ignorant of their rights and therefore could never have agreed to respect those.

That said, a true joint tenancy cannot come into effect by possession or other circumstance, but must be an explicit agreement. Joint tenants cannot co-possess due to the exclusivity requirement.

Condominiums
Condominiums are a form of real estate that is physically structured like a townhome block or an apartment building, but governed in law as if it were a set of separate dwellings with a common infrastructure. Essentially they are governed by corporations with share structures to deal with common needs (common areas, yards, parking, hallways, elevators, waste disposal, utilities) and issues (noise, safety, odours, aesthetics, property security, rules regarding pets or children). These corporations have the right to compel sale of condo units by those who won't follow rules.

Most upscale rental units in Canadian cities are condominium units, owned by speculators or persons intending to use them later in life, rented to tenants and managed by a condominium corporation in conjunction with a building management company that ensure tenancies that do not devalue the units or disrupt tenant quiet enjoyment. Accordingly condominium and tenancy law are very inter-related.

Easements
An easement is the right of use over the real property of another. Historically it was limited to the right of way and rights over flowing waters. Traditionally it was a right that could only attach to an adjacent land and was for the benefit of all, not a specific person. The right is often described as the right to use the land of another for a special purpose. It is distinguished from a license that only gives one a personal privilege to do something on the land of another usually the permission to pass over the property without creating a trespass.

Typically, an easement is composed of two tenements (types of land). There is the dominant tenement which is the plot of land to which the benefit an appurtenant easement is attached. Second, there is the subservient tenement which is the plot of land which bears the burden of the easement.

Easements may be considered public or private. A private easement is limited to specific owners or even just one individual such as the sole owner of an adjoining land. A public easement grants the right to a large group of individuals or to the public in general, such as the easement on public streets and highways or of the right to navigate a river, or launch boats from a beach. An "appurtenant" easement belongs to the owner of the land that benefits from the easement, as compared to other easements (easements in gross) that do not require ownership to obtain the use.

An easement may be implied or express. An express easement is typically included in a document such as a deed or other officially recorded grant, or incorporated by reference to a subdivision plan, or restrictive covenants in an association agreement. An implied easement may be of necessity or agreed to by permitting use for a statutory period. If the easement is highly visible such as an old right of way shown on widely distributed maps, it may be hard to extinguish even if never used. Another name for implied easements is "prescriptive rights". The "doctrine of lost modern grant" holds that if all interested parties behave as if a grant of right exist long enough, then it does. This only applies to the non-exclusive prescriptive rights, not rights to sell or evict from land, though there are parallel doctrines ("proprietary estoppel", "boundary estoppel") with that effect.

Application of these doctrines varies widely, but in general a fence or path or a building creates a status quo that is difficult to undo, particularly if investment in improvements and use proceeds visibly for years without objection or interference, and especially if it is based on a survey or marker placed by one party that the other abides by, relies on, and trusts. A "right of way of necessity" may apply regardless of other easements for safety reasons, and be implied by a deed. It is not however implied by mere possession or occupation of land without a deed, i.e. squatting.

In Torrens jurisdictions easements must be registered to bind successive purchasers. However, the Canadian jurisdictions vary widely in terms of how much time is allowed to advance easement claims after registration - usually at least ten years, in most provinces equal to the limitations period.

Covenants
Covenants are obligations to use land only in certain ways or for certain purposes, e.g. as a family dwelling or a wildlife refuge. Or, to dispose of it only a certain way, say by sale within family.

Mortgages
Mortgages are loans secured by land. In some jurisdictions, when the majority equity holder is the lender, that lender is formally the paper title holder or "true" owner, and no mortgage is binding without such an agreement. If the mortgage defaults then the lender has a clear "right of entry and distress" to evict the possessor and sell the property, which ensures orderly conduct of real estate.

It is more common however to require a firmer verification of land titles, including formal land registration, before borrowing against land. In most Canadian provinces no loan is binding as a mortgage without registration. The paper title may be seized as security and the possession is thus with permission of the mortgage holder until such time as the mortgage is discharged completely and the title reverts to the possessor. This is to ensure no one "squats out from under" a mortgage by claiming that the lender did not perform the acts of possession normally required of title holders.

Land Registration
Land Registration Acts have, in most provinces, moved Canada more to a Torrens-style system with less reliance on title search, more on surveys. This has generally been accompanied by a shortening of limitations to a ten- or fifteen-year period, refinements to title quieting measures, and otherwise making land transactions (after registration) more certain and less subject to common law challenge.

The Acts and court interpretations vary widely in terms of what rights registration guarantees or insures, limits placed on adverse possession, disputes over extent, estates and the capacity of deceased persons to make new claims, who is permitted to dispute or alter records after registration, and so on. None of the Acts in Canada actually establishes a true Torrens system with both extent & title guaranteed and not subject to any common law challenge whatsoever - not even from possessory claims.

Back to Canadian Property Law

title: Canadian Property Law/Real Property


text:
Talk:United States Government/The Constitution and Amendments

A suggestion: How about indicating the year when each amendment was ratified?

August 6, 2006: Amendment ratification dates added.

August 6, 2006: Changes to the Constitutions by Amendment were previously shown by strike-through text. Changes now shown by bold text.


text:
Talk:Windows XP/Drive Failure

Welcome to the Troubleshooting Windows XP talk page. I've started this book largely to separate the "Troubleshooting" section out of the Windows manual that's in progress, which I'm also contributing to. The "Performance" section of that manual will, likewise, also probably be pulled out at some point. Please feel free to contribute, question, or correct! Cheers, Matt "Breakpoint" Heck 27OCT2004

Change Discussion
"Odds are that you will have spyware on your system. Anyone who browses the internet for any length of time generally does." -- This is simply not true. This should be replaced with a list of symptoms users may experience when spyware is running. For example, "If you find that pop-up advertisements are appearing inexplicably, you may have spyware on your computer..." -- Micah Henning

New Layout
It is of my opinion that readers of this book may, more often than not, be looking for a solution to a problem the users have recently incurred. Therefore, this book should be structured based on symptom and/or the location of the symptom.

For example, if my copy of Windows XP does not boot (the symptom), I will immediately navigate to a section within this book that talks about what to do when Windows does not boot. Under this section, one may find subsections like "Due to a Bluescreen failure" or "Without any symptoms."

title: Talk:Windows XP/Drive Failure


text:
User talk:Breakpoint~enwikibooks

Please leave me a note! --Breakpoint

I would encourage you not to use "course codes" for Wikiversity, though this possibly needs more discussion as a whole. Wikiversity should be as uniform as possible in its "administrative character", ideally.

Perhaps this should warrant discussion at Talk:Wikiversity? Dysprosia 10:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't take that stuff as gospel-- it just occurred to me that putting it down that way would be a good way to get our thoughts together and check for consistency. The course codes themselves turned out to be a gigantic pain in the neck as soon as I realized I got a number wrong... =]

Still, being able to present that information in a table, concisely, is part of the reason they HAVE course codes for universities. Any alternatives come to mind?

Thanks, Breakpoint 0550 PST 04NOV2004

I'm want some more infomation about the Computer Science Courses. Can you email me at *nospam*nbx909@gmail.com (with out *nospam*) or give out your email address? Basically i want to know when they will start. I am a high school student that wants to take some of these courses during the summer. Yes i want to take College level courses and no my mother isn't makeing me.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Breakpoint. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Breakpoint~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Breakpoint~enwikibooks


text:
User:J'raxis~enwikibooks

J’raxis 270145 spends most of his time over at Wikipedia, but also contributes to this wiki from time to time.

title: User:J'raxis~enwikibooks


text:
Talk:Biochemistry/Carbohydrates

--129.67.120.61 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
"These are used only for energy in living organisms."

This just isn't true. Look up glycosylation of proteins, lipids etc at Wikipedia.

AdamStevenson 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a tenative outline in inspiration. I will be glad to share the document with anyone that is interested. After my tests this week, I will see about posting it on the weekend.

AdamStevenson 04:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be editing this page over the next two weeks. I will be posting an outline here as soon as I finish it. If there are any suggestions for topic inclusion outside of the traditional biochemistry texts, please let me know.

The wikipeida page has a lot information on this topic that is not included in this book. They two pages need to syncronized.

I am a bit busy, but I'll edit the page after. I won't get mad if someone else contributes though ;)--Stewiki 21:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made an edit to this page to add the 3 categories of Carbohydrates to the index, and I will add information accordingly tommorow.--Stewiki 03:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Biochemistry/Carbohydrates


text:
Primary Mathematics/Method for Factoring

A method of prime factorization for children
In math, the way you get to the correct answer is just as important as getting the right answer. Sometimes the way one gets the answer can be thought of a proof. People don't usually use the word proof when talking about arithmetic problems, but I think it is a good idea and good habit to get into. This is a method of doing prime factorization that constructs a proof that your answer is correct as you arrive at the answer. It keeps you from getting lost and shows your work. More importantly, I think it helps you understand the process. It starts out very easy, so that beginners can use it, but later on lets you skip some steps to save time.

The basic point of prime factorization is to take a number and find the prime factors. Since each prime factor may occur more than once, for example in the number 4, which has prime factors (2,2), we know that the factors of a number are not a set but a multi-set. (The difference will be important as you get to more advanced math.) So the basic way we are going to do our work looks like this:

pf(X) = { a reason we believe this} (a list of factors)

For example, for the number 4, we could factorize it like this:

pf(4) = { 4 = 2 * 2 }   (2,2)

This is a very simple proof, and also represents what is sometimes called "showing our work" or our "scratch paper". Learning math is often about learning the language and symbols of math, and we need to do that now.

I use the symbol pf(X) to mean "the prime factors of X". I use a comma list of numbers of "pf(X)" symbols between parentheses to mean a multi-set of prime factors. So (pf(45),2,5) means "multi-set that includes the prime-factors of 45 and the prime number 2 and the prime number 5".

Now, for doing prime factorization, we are only going to allow certain reasons to go from one step to the next toward the answer. For example, "my friend Harold said so" is not a good reason.

The first reason that we will allow is a simple multiplication equation of the form x = y * z.   In particular, we are allowed to do this:

pf(x) = { x = y*z } (pf(y),pf(z))

so long as the equation x = y* z is true (and y and z are both greater than 1, otherwise we'd be going in circles!)

The second rule that we are allowed to use is to replace pf(x) with (x) if we know for sure that x is a prime. For example, you should probably memorize the first ten primes: (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29), so it's OK to go from substitute the number 23 for pf(23), since we should know by heart that 23 is prime. When we do this, we give the reason "23 is prime".

Finally, we need to note that ((X)) = (X), no matter what X is, so we never need to write parentheses inside parentheses (this is not true of multiplication, it is only true because we are using parentheses to mean something special).

So let's do an example:

pf(4) = { 4 = 2 * 2 }   (pf(2), pf(2) = { 2 is prime}    (2,2)

So, in this example, we've chained together two steps, with a reason for each one that is very simple. This is a good idea when you are starting out. However, mathematicians also want to be efficient, so if you are sure of what you are doing, you could do two steps at once: pf(4) = { 4 = 2 * 2, 2 is prime} (2,2)

Notice that whether we perform one, two, or even more steps, we are really creating an equation. If we drop out the intermediate steps, the result is pf(4) = (2,2), which is probably about what someone would want on a test.

Now let's do a harder one:

pf(60) = { 60 = 6 * 10 }   (pf(6), pf(10)) = { 6= 2* 3, 10 = 2* 5 }   (2,3,2,5) = { commutativity of multiplication} (2,2,3,5)

Commutativity of multiplication is a rule that just lets us reorder the factors. It's nice to have them in order in our list, so we will often do that at the end. But that's a lot of writing, so we'll abbreviate it { com. of mult. } Also, notice that in the second step I dropped the unnecessary parentheses, instead of writing ((2,3), (2,5)).

Now let's do an even bigger one, that's still easy, since the prime factors are all small, and it's easy to see the factors.

pf(450) = { 450 = 45 * 10 }   (pf(45), pf(10)} = { 45 = 5 * 9, 10 = 2 * 5 }    (5,pf(9),2,5) = { 9 = 3 * 3, com. of mult.}    (2,3,3,5,5)

Now we see a way in which we could have made a mistake --- if we forgot that 9 is not prime and had written (5,9,2,5). Hopefully we would have noticed, but we need to be careful!

When the factors aren't obvious
I think this is a nice method when the factors are easy to see. But unfortunately, sometimes they aren't easy to see at all, and we need a new symbol for expressing our work in that case.

Consider the number 143. Is it prime, or does it have factors? Well, its not obvious. The basic approach to finding any factor, or proving that a number is prime, is to start at the first prime (the number 2) and see if it is a factor. By going systematically up through each prime, we either find a factor or reach a prime that is bigger than the square root of the number, in which case we know the number is prime.

However, this is sometimes a big job, and we would really like to show our work in a way that helps us keep track of where we are and also can be quickly checked over to make sure we haven't made any mistakes.

The way we can do this is with the symbol nu(X,Y), which means "the multi-set of prime factors of Y, understanding that none of the numbers up to and including X evenly divide Y". I'm thus using the "not divisible up to" function nu both to help remember what has already been checked, but I've defined it so that my equation remains technically true at all times. The reason we want this symbol is that we know that is how you prove something is prime---you prove nu(sqrt(Y),Y), and then you know Y is prime. For example, if you know nu(13, 123), you know 123 is prime since 13*13 > 123. We can introduce nu(2,X) with the reason { X is not even}. If we know nu(2,X), then we can introduce nu(3,X) with the reason { sum of X's digits not divisible by 3 }.

So let's try this:

pf(143) = { 143 is not even } (nu(2,143)) = { 1+4+3 not divisible by 3 } (nu(3,143)) = { 143 doesn't end in 5 } (nu(5,143)) = { 143 / 7 = 20 and 3 / 7 } (nu(7,143)) = { 143 / 11 = 13!!}   (11,pf(13)) = { 13 is prime } (11,13)

So that is our answer. Now in this case, we had to use a reason that we derived by division: 143/ 7 is not a whole number, but 20 and 3/ 7s. And, we were surprised to learn that 11 evenly divides 143. Let's try an even harder one. (Note, I am using the divisibility test from the Dr. Math website: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.divisibleto50.html rather than doing division for many of these divisibility tests at noted, but if I had to do it on a test, I would use division, since I don't have those rules memorized.) pf(1709) = { not even, doesn't sum to 3, doesn't end in 5 } (nu(5,1709)) = { 170+45 = 215, not divisible by 7 (x5 and add rule for 7) } (nu(7,1709)) = { 1709/ 11 leaves 609, 609/ 11 leaves 59 (short division)} (nu(11,1709)) = { 170+ 4*9 = 206, 20+24 = 48 not divisible by 13 (x4 and add rule for 13) } (nu(13,1709)) = { 170-45 = 125, not divisible by 17 (x5 and subtract rule for 17) } (nu(17,1709)) = { 170+18 = 188, not divisible by 19 (x2 and add rule for 19)} (nu(19,1709)) = { 170+63 = 233, not divisible by 23 (x7 and add rule for 23)} (nu(23,1709)) = { 170+27 = 197, 19+21 = 40, not divisible by 29 (x3 and add rule for 29)} (nu(29,1709)) = { 170 - 27 = 143, 14 - 27 = -13, not divisible by 31 (x3 and subtract rule for 31)} (nu(31,1709)) = { 170 - 99 = 71, not divisible by 37 (x11 and subtract rule for 37)} (nu(37,1709)) = { 170 - 36 = 134, 41* 3 = 123 (x4 and subtract rule for 41) } (nu(41,1709)) = { 4*43 = 172, 3 * 43 = 129, 1720+129 = 1849, so by nu rule we are done!} (1709)

By systematically working our way up from 2 to the square root of the number, we can always keep track of where we are. For example, if we had started with 6 * 1709 = 10254, we would have ended up with:

pf(10254) = { even} (2,pf(5127)) = {5+1+2+7=15 = 3 * 5 }   (2,3,pf(1709)) .....   (2,3,1709)

and then the proof would proceed as it did above, carrying with it the prime factors 2 and 3 the whole time.

It is recommended that children use this method of writing out their work in order to build good habits that will pay off in algebra and other more advanced mathematical calculation, and introduces gently the all-important concept of the proof.

One sometimes sees factor trees suggested as a notation. Factor trees may be useful for visualizing some things but are not useful at all if one can't see the factors!


text:
User:Jxn

jxn, or Jackson, is an undergraduate student of primarily sociology and government at Augustana College in Sioux Falls, SD.

My Wikipedia profile

title: User:Jxn


text:
Talk:Physics Study Guide/Force

Observations below are absolutely correct and need to be adopted.

Sure kr06 09:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)sunil

I have already edited this page (a few minutes ago) in order to clarify two equations given on this page. The first one concerns the F = ma form of Newton's Second Law. This is a standard form which appears in most basic textbooks, but it is not the general mathematical form of the Law, because it assumes that the mass is constant. Consequently, I have added some comments to clarify this.

The second clarification concerns the form of the Second Law in terms of change of momentum. In the equation as originally given, the delta p was divided by time; this should actually be "change in time" or "elapsed time". Consequently, I modified the equation to reflect this. I also clarified the comment about the "equality" of these two forms of Newton's Second Law and the statement concerning acceleration being the rate of change of velocity.

The basic reasons for these edits is that the originals were fundamentally in error, and needed to be corrected. I hope the changes make the subject clearer for the reader, as well as being more correct.

 * Would it be helpful to give some examples of forces ? Maybe even define the term "force" ? In particular, I want to avoid giving the false impression that the definition of force is "mass times acceleration". For example, I can push on the bumper of my car with quite a few Newtons of force. But if the parking brake on my car is set, it's not going to move ( a = 0 m/s^2 ). If I just blindly plug numbers into the f=ma equation, I get roughly (20 Newtons) = (1 000 kg)*( 0 m/s^2), which is nonsense. (perhaps we should emphasize that the f=ma formula is the definition of *mass*).

''It's true that $$\mathbf{F} = \frac{d\mathbf{p}}{dt}$$ is really the exact formula. This is approximately equal to F=ma only at speads much less than the speed of light.''

Some examples would really clarify the formula f = ma!

The statement about Einstein should be removed. He can hardly have had anything bad to say about the third law, which just expresses that momentum  is conserved. As for the first and second, they're still fine of you adapt the definition of momentum to p = (gamma) m v.

The order of sections
Do we need "Friction" BEFORE the Newtonian Laws? Lincoln J. (discuss • contribs)

Missing content
I think we need a section about inertial systems — as to introduce the Newtonian Laws. Lincoln J. (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Physics Study Guide/Force


text:
Introduction to Philosophy/Logic/Modes

Introduction to Philosophy > Logic > Modes

"There can be no smoke without fire."

 * —old proverb

You will need to know about at least two 'modes' before skipping to propositional calculus.

modus ponens
First premise: If you drive too fast, you will have an accident. Second premise: You drive too fast. ___________________________________________ Conclusion: you will have an accident.

Well, that was pretty obvious. Here is another example:

smoke implies fire smoke __________________

fire

Generally: 'From the premises "p implies q" and "p", we can infer "q".'

modus tollens
Sometimes we want to reason backwards:

First premise: If you drive too fast, you will have an accident. Second premise: You will not have an accident. ________________________________________________________________ Conclusion: You do not drive too fast.

The second premise is in the future tense. Only a clairvoyant would assert such a thing in real life. The argument is valid, though it is not possible to know in advance the truth of the second premise.

Here is another example:

smoke implies fire no fire __________________ no smoke

Generally: 'From the premises "p implies q" and "not q", we can infer "not p".

some bad reasoning
smoke implies fire no smoke __________________ no fire

Someone who reasons like this could end up being burned alive in an accident involving smokeless fuel. Whereas modus ponens and modus tollens are examples of deduction, our last example is an example of abduction. It works some of the time, it can suggest what might be the case, but it is unreliable. This logical fallacy is known as denying the antecedent.

We used to have a safety officer who would come from head office and say 'if it is tidy, it is safe'. He concluded things were safe if they were tidy. This did not impress the computer programmers in the department since to be a programmer you need to have a bit of sensitivity to logic. To conclude things were safe if they were tidy, he would have more correctly said 'if it is untidy, it is unsafe', or 'if it is safe, it is tidy'.

The Wikipedia has a long list of different kinds of logical fallacy. I suggest you have a look at it, and read some of the entries. Not only will you find it amusing, it could stop you from being duped by bad arguments.

Up: Logic Table of Contents

title: Introduction to Philosophy/Logic/Modes


text:
User talk:221.219.56.212

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Paddu 14:49, 28 Oct 2004

title: User talk:221.219.56.212


text:
Japanese/Vocabulary/Family and people

Related resources
"For Japanese, family names are the worst growing pains"

Japonês/Vocabulário/Família

title: Japanese/Vocabulary/Family and people


text:
Biblical Studies/New Testament Commentaries/The Gospel of John/Introduction

Authorship and Date Written
Wikipedia Article

John: The last Gospel - Introduction:

John is the fourth and last Gospel in the New Testament. This Gospel contains many distinctive accounts that are not found in the other Gospels. Only about 10% of the Johannine Gospel is shared with the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The differences of note include:
 * The emphasis on the Person of Jesus as the Messiah and God's Revelation of Jesus as "Light of the World"
 * The generality of the Gospel, which is not addressed to a specific audience
 * Repetitive use of distinctive words not found in the other Gospels (light, life, love)
 * Several events and discourses in the life of Jesus not found elsewhere.

Some may argue that this gospel contains many of the principles that would become instrumental in later missionary developments. The fact that most of the book is centered around Jesus' work on earth would also lead many to this distinction about the book. The similar relationships between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics are the accounts of the passion story, basic structural similarity with order of Jesus' ministry, and similar pattern of dialogues/metaphors (Dodd, 1953). On the other hand in the Fourth Gospel there is no account of several common themes from the Synoptic Gospels:
 * Jesus' birth and Baptism and Temptations
 * Early years of ministry
 * Calling of the Twelve Disciples
 * Sermon on the Mount
 * The parables about the Kingdom of Heaven
 * Teachings on Service, Prayer
 * Teachings of the Disciples

In comparison, the Synoptics have no wedding at Cana, no raising of Lazarus, no washing of the feet of the disciples, and no conversation with Nicodemus.

The literary structure of the story of Jesus flows by a public ministry of Jesus, a private teaching of his disciples, a public trial and execution, and a series of private appearances to his disciples. The author leads the reader through sequences and the reader experiences the story through their emotions. The use of emotion helps the book create a different kind of connection in the reader. Instead of merely presenting the story of Jesus' life in a vague unevoking manner, the author uses words and phrasing to create emotional attachment. It is almost as if the book was written with the intention that it would be used to evangelize those who read it, which of course is the purpose of all the Gospels-- To bear witness to the Truth of Scripture and God's purposes toward men.

Although one would perhaps ask why there are such differences, it is clear that John's Gospel is directed toward those who already are familiar with one or more of the Synoptic Gospels. Thus, John does not repeat the Synoptic content but concentrates on the compelling Personage and Purpose of Christ.

Finally, some individuals might say the purpose of its writings are to evoke faith or convince readers that Jesus is the Messiah. John 20:31 states, "But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name." It appears, from this verse, that the purpose of the Fourth Gospel is to evangelize its readers. However, scholars debate about the translation of the original Greek. Some say the translation reads, "may continue to believe." If this is the case, the Gospel of John was probably written to strengthen Christians in their struggles at the time (see John 20:28). Robert Kysar, author of "John the Maverick Gospel" believes that the latter purpose mentioned, that the Fourth Gospel was written to sustain Christians' faith, makes sense when the Fourth Gospel, as a whole, is studied. Kysar points out that the Gospel of John consistently shows Jesus as both "sent from God and one who has divine status but is still subordinate to the Father" (Kysar 21). Perhaps this was a response to all the Jewish people who were hesitant about Christianity, charging it with being a religion that supports two gods. When the historical struggle between Jews, who were afraid of losing the "stability of the synagogue" (Kysar 21), and Christians, who were afraid of not being able to practice what they believed, is taken into account, it makes a great deal more sense to view the Gospel of John as an attempt to strengthen Christians' beliefs so they could defend themselves when their faith was questioned.

The themes in this Gospel are all related to the claims which Jesus made about himself, and the evidence that supports those claims. Here are eight claims which Jesus made about himself:

1) That he can give (and is) living water. 2) That he is the bread of life 3) That he is the light of the world 4) That he is the door of the sheep 5) That he is the good shepherd who gives his life for the sheep 6) That he is the resurrection and the life 7) That he is the way, the truth, and the life 8) That he is the true vine 9) That he and the Father are one.

Notice that "living" or "life" appears repeatedly in these claims. Life is a very prominent theme in John's Gospel, and light is closely related to it. Evidence is presented to convince the reader of the truth of the above and other similar claims. Therefore, faith and believing are also prominent themes.

General Resources on the Gospel of John
The Johannine Literature Web


text:
Talk:Introduction to Philosophy/Logic/Modes

Need to put some links to the wikipedia in, as it has some short entries and links to help students who want to look a little bit deeper at this subject.

tidy implies safe
I edited the bad reasoning section because the reader only knew the officer has one premise. No second premise and conclusion of his were mentioned. liblamb 19:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Gkhan/Matrix Multiplication DP version

Defining the problem
Say that you need to multiply a series of n matrices together and form a product P.

 * $$M_1 M_2 M_3 \cdots M_{n-1} M_n = P$$

What is the fastest way we can form this product? Even though matrix-multiplication is not commutative it is associative. I.e.

 * $$(M_1 M_2) M_3 = M_1 (M_2 M_3)$$
 * $$M_1 M_2 \ne M_2 M_1$$

This means we can decide in what way to parenthesize a matrix product but we cannot change the order which we multiply them. Since you can only multiply two matrices at a time the product $$M_1 M_2 M_3 M_4$$ can be paranthesized in these ways:

 * $$(((M_1 M_2) M_3) M_4)$$
 * $$((M_1 (M_2 M_3)) M_4)$$
 * $$(M_1 ((M_2 M_3) M_4))$$
 * $$((M_1 M_2) (M_3 M_4))$$
 * $$(M_1 (M_2 (M_3 M_4)))$$

Two matrixes $$M_1$$ and $$M_2$$ can be multiplied if the number of coulums in $$M_1$$ equals the number of rows in $$M_2$$. The number of rows in their product will equal the number rows in $$M_1$$ and the number of columns will equal the number of columns in $$M_2$$. I.e if the dimensions of $$M_1$$ is $$a \times b$$ and $$M_2$$ has dimensions $$b \times c$$ their product will have dimensions $$a \times c$$

Two multiply two matrices with eachother we will use a function called MatrixMultiply which takes two matrices and returns their product. We will leave implementation of this function alone for the moment as it is not the focus of this chapter (how to multiply two matrices in the fastest way has been under intensive study for several years and really merits it's own chapter). The time this function takes two multiply two matrices of size $$a \times b$$ and $$b \times a$$ is essentially proportional to the number of scalar multiplications which is proportional to $$a b c$$. This means that the paranthezation matters. Say that we have three matrices $$M_1$$, $$M_2$$ and $$M_3$$. $$M_1$$ has dimensions $$5 \times 100$$, $$M_2$$ has dimensions $$100 \times 100$$ and $$M_3$$ has dimensions $$100 \times 50$$. Let's parantezise them in the two possible ways and see which way requires the least amount of multiplications. The two ways are

 * $$((M_1 M_2) M_3)$$
 * $$(M_1 (M_2 M_3))$$

To form the product in the first way requires 75000 scalar multiplications (5*100*100=50000 to form product $$(M_1 M_2)$$ and another 5*100*50=25000 for the last multiplications.) This might seem like alot, but in comparison to the 525000 scalar multiplications required by the second parenthesization (50*100*100=500000 plus 5*50*100=25000) it is miniscule! One understands why such an algorithm is important, imagine what would happen if we needed to multiply 50 matrices!

Forming a recursive solution
Note that in this discussion we will concentrate on finding a how many scalar multiplications are needed instead of the actual order. This is because once we have found a working algorithm to find the amount it is trivial to create an algorithm for the actual paranthezation. It will, however, be discussed in the end.

So how would an algorithm for the optimum paranthezation look? By the chapter title you might expect that a dynamic programming method is in order (not to give the answer away or anything). So how would a dynamic programming method work? Since dynamic programming algorithms are based on optimal substructure, what would the optimal substructure in this problem be?

Suppose that the optimal way parenthesize
 * $$M_1 M_2 \dots M_n$$

splits the product at k, i.e
 * $$(M_1 M_2 \dots M_k)(M_{k+1} M_{k+2} \dots M_n)$$

Then the optimal solution contains the optimal solutions to the two subproblems
 * $$(M_1 \dots M_k)$$
 * $$(M_{k+1} \dots M_n)$$

I.e, just in accordance with the fundamental principle of dynamic programming, the solution to the problem depends on the solution of smaller sub-problems.

Let's say that it takes $$c(n)$$ number of scalar multiplications to multiply matrices $$M_n$$ and $$M_{n+1}$$ and $$f(m,n)$$ is number of scalar multiplications to be performed in an optimal paranthesation of the matrices $$M_m \dots M_n$$. The definition or $$f(m,n)$$ is the first step towards a solution.

When $$m-n=1$$, the formulation is trivial, it is just $$c(n)$$. But what is it when the distance is larger? Using the observation above we can derive a formulation. Suppose an optimal solution to the problem divides the matrices at matrices k and k+1 (i.e $$(M_m \dots M_k)(M_{k+1} \dots M_n)$$) then the number of scalar multiplications are.

 * $$f(m,k) + f(k+1,n) + c(k)$$

That is, the amount of time to form the first product, the amount of time it takes to form the second product and the amount of time it takes to multiply them together. But what is this optimal value k? The answer is, ofcourse, the value that makes the above formula assume the minimum value. We can thus form the complete definition for the function:

 * $$f(m,n) = \begin{cases} \min_{m < k < n}f(m,k) + f(k+1,n) + c(k) & \mbox{if } n-m>1 \\ c(m) & \mbox{if }n-m=1 \end{cases}$$

A straight-forward recursive solution to this would look something like this (the language is Wikicode):

function f(m, n) { if m-n = 1 return c(m) minCost = $$\infty$$ for k from m + 1 to n - 1 { v = f(m, k) + f(k + 1, n) + c(k) if v < minCost minCost = v    } }

This rather simple solution is, unfortunatly, not a very good one. It spends mountains of time recomputing data and its running time is exponential.

[TODO: write an analysis of the straight-forward-recursion method]

Using Memoization
It is straightforward to convert the recursive solution into one that uses memoization. You just have to modify the code so that results are stored so no values need to be recomputed.

int[,] x; function f(m, n) { if x[m][n] != null return x[m][n] if m == n        x[m][n] = 0 return 0 if m-n = 1 { x[m][n] = c(m) return c(m) }    minCost = $$\infty$$ for k from m to n - 1 { v = f(m, k) + f(k + 1, n) + c(k) if v < minCost minCost = v    } x[m][n] = minCost; return minCost }

As you can see, there is very little modification needed to the original code. This is a huge optimization, down to a polynomial-time algorithm.

''[What is the exact runtime? My qualified guess would be O(n^2*log n) but i haven't analyzed it properly.]''

Using Dynamic Programming
So how do we make it into a full-fledged bottom-up dynamic progragramming algorithm? To illustrate that point, lets use an example. Suppose we have 6 matrices with the following dimensions:

 * $$M_1 : 6 \times 15$$
 * $$M_2 : 15 \times 8$$
 * $$M_3 : 8 \times 1$$
 * $$M_4 : 1 \times 17$$
 * $$M_5 : 17 \times 7$$
 * $$M_6 : 7 \times 15$$

This will make the cost-function c(n) assume the following values:

 * $$c(n) = \begin{cases}

720 & n=1 \\ 120 & n=2 \\ 136 & n=3 \\ 119 & n=4 \\ 1785 & n=5 \end{cases} $$

The matrix which will hold the optimum values (called x in the memozation example) can be seen like this:

This is only half of the entire array, but since the values m>n are never used it would be redundant to display them. The reason that it is tilted to the side is that it conveinently shows the how the process "builds" the result up from the bottom. So, what can we do to this matrix. If we look at the definition of f(m, n) it says that for all the values which m=n the value in the array is zero. Let's fill in those values:

Allright! Let's boldly continue. The row just above the one we filled in contains all the values with adjacent indexes (i.e 1,2 2,3 3,4 4,5 and 5,6). Those values are just the values of the cost-function, so let's fill in those too.

Now we continue to next row and just use the definition to fill in the blanks. What, for instance should be in 1,3? Just use the definition:


text:
PHP Programming/formatting notes

Commenting in PHP is simple and effective.

Writing notes to yourself, within your code, is the only way to keep track of a large file. Coming back to an uncommented 300-line page of code can be a nightmare.

To insert a single line comment within php code type // before the line. To insert a multi-line comment within code start the comment with /* and end it with */. For example:

title: PHP Programming/formatting notes


text:
PHP Programming/Templates

Basic Templating
The simplest use of templates in PHP is very powerful for reducing errors and time spent on your pages. First, make sure your server has PHP enabled, etc., etc.

When you're ready to start, make one page that will be the template for all your pages. For example:

This is a title at the top of my page This is the body of my page This is a copyright notice

Now, say you want 2 more pages with the same header and footer. You don't have to code it again. You can save the header as one template and the footer as another. Just take all the header html up to the part where your body text begins:

This is a title at the top of my page

Now save this as a separate file. I like to use the extension .inc (do the same with the footer)

This is the bottom of my page

Now, in your main page, just type: And that's your page. Save it as a .php, upload it, and check it.

Managed Templating
Managed Templating allows you to create and use PHP Templates with a Template Engine. The PHP Developer/Designer doesn't have to create the engine for it to be used. The most reliable PHP Templating Engine is Smarty. Managed Template Systems are easy to use and are mostly used in big websites because of the need for dynamic paging. MediaWiki is one example of a Managed Template System. Managed Templating is easy to use for new and advanced users, for example:

 * index.php

The Value of Variable is : {$variable} The Value of Variable is : value
 * template.tpl
 * Output

Roll Your Own
Template engines work great, however if you are just looking for the basic Search and Replace template functionality, writing your own script is a snap.

 * Simple template function

 * Using the function

 * template.tpl, Template used for the above function

 * Parsed template output

title: PHP Programming/Templates


text:
Cookbook:Squash

Squash is a yellow vegetable. (botanically, the fruit of any of four species in the genus Cucurbita) Squash is related to cucumbers and most melons.

There are two general types of squash, summer and winter. Summer squash are eaten unripe, when they have thin edible skins and small soft seeds. Long ago, such squash were only available in summer. They do not keep well. Winter squash are eaten when fully ripe, when the seeds and skin have become hard. Long ago, such squash were valued for their ability to keep during winter. They are generally harvested in fall.

Summer Squash
Summer squash includes those varieties which are harvested while still immature and when the entire squash is tender and edible. They include the yellow crookneck, the large straightneck, the greenish-white patty pan (petit pan), and the slender green zucchini. The EPA would also include crookneck squash, scallop squash, spaghetti squash, Chinese okra, bitter melon, balsam pear, balsam apple, Chinese cucumber, and chayote. Some of these squash are available at all times of the year.

Look for squash that are tender and well developed, firm, and fresh-appearing. A tender squash has skin is glossy instead of dull, and it is neither hard nor tough. Avoid stale or overmature squash, which will have a dull appearance and a hard, tough surface. Such squash usually have enlarged seeds and dry, stringy flesh. Also avoid squash with discolored or pitted areas.

Among substances present in summer squash are two phytochemicals, coumarins and flavonoids. The skin and rind of summer squash are rich in the nutrient beta-carotene, but the fleshy portion of this vegetable is not. To gain the full nutritional benefits of this vegetable, the skins or rinds must be eaten.

Winter Squash
Winter squash are those varieties which are marketed only when fully mature. Some of the most important varieties are the small corrugated acorn squash (available all year-round), butternut squash, buttercup squash, green and blue hubbard squash, green and gold delicious squash, and banana squash. Winter squash is most plentiful from early fall until late winter.

Look for full maturity, indicated by a hard, tough rind. Also look for squash that is heavy for its size (meaning a thick wall and more edible flesh). Slight variations in skin color do not affect flavor. Avoid squash with cuts, punctures, sunken spots, or moldy spots on the rind. These are indications of decay. A tender rind indicates immaturity, which is a sign of poor eating quality in winter squash varieties.

To cook a decent-sized winter squash in the traditional way, first slice it in half from stem end to blossom end. If the squash is very large, cut it a few more times. Place the pieces into a baking dish. Cover the dish with foil to keep the squash from getting dry. Cook the squash for a fairly long time, not at a very high temperature, so that it gets soft all the way to the inside. The squash is done when you can easily shove a spoon into it. Serve the squash as it is. Add butter, raisins, and brown sugar at the table.

Types of squash

 * acorn squash
 * butternut squash (butternut pumpkin)
 * chayote
 * gem squash
 * marrow (a UK-specific subset of squash)
 * pumpkin
 * spaghetti squash
 * zucchini (courgette)

title: Cookbook:Squash


text:
Cookbook:Cayenne Pepper

Cayenne pepper is a hot red chile.

Characteristics
This chile is a couple inches long and bright red when ripe, with a heat level of about 30,000 to 50,000 Scoville units. While some other chiles have complex flavor profiles, cayenne is generally neutral aside from its clean heat.

Selection and storage
Cayenne may be used fresh, but it is very commonly available dried and ground. The fresh version should be firm and waxy, and it keeps for a couple days in the fridge. The dried form should be kept in an airtight container away from light, heat, and moisture.

Use
Cayenne is used in cooking various spicy hot dishes, where it adds a straightforward heat without other flavor. It is an essential ingredient in Cajun cuisine. The chile is also used to add heat to sweet dishes, such as chocolate confections and more.

title: Cookbook:Cayenne Pepper


text:
User:Deanos~enwikibooks

█ this door is big

▪ this door is small

■ this door is locked

□ this door is open

title: User:Deanos~enwikibooks


text:
Cookbook:Sugar

Sugar is a sweetener. It can come from a variety of plant sources, including various trees, root vegetables, and sugar cane.

Varieties
Sugars can be categorized according to origin, processing/refining method, and crystal size.

Raw Sugar
Raw sugars are typically derived from earlier stages in the sugar refining process, when compared to white sugars. They retain varying amounts of molasses. They can include:

 * Sugarcane-derived Jaggery
 * Demerara Sugar / Turbinado Sugar
 * Muscovado Sugar (not to be confused with commercial US brown sugars)

White Refined Sugars
White sugar is a refined sugar composed almost entirely of sucrose. It can be derived from sugarcane or beets and can have a wide range of crystal sizes.

 * Granulated Sugar
 * Castor (AUS/NZ) or Caster (UK) Sugar / Superfine Sugar / Baking Sugar
 * Confectioners' / Powdered Sugar / Icing Sugar (AUS/NZ/UK)
 * Rock Sugar
 * Pearl Sugar

Brown Sugar
Brown sugar, as sold in the USA, is refined white sugar with molasses added back to it. It has more flavor and moisture than white sugars. It can be found in two main forms: The term 'brown sugar' can also refer to unrefined or raw sugars that have not yet had the molasses removed.
 * Light brown sugar
 * Dark brown sugar

Palm Sugar

 * Coconut Sugar
 * Gula Jawa
 * Palm-derived Jaggery

Maple Sugar
Maple sugar is derived from the sap of sugar maples.

title: Cookbook:Sugar


text:
Japanese/Existence and Copula

What is a copula?
In English, the verb 'to be' serves two purposes: It acts as the copula, and it acts as the verb for existence. However, in many languages, including Japanese, these two verbs are separate—so it helps to have an understanding of the difference between the two usages.

A copula can be thought of as an equals sign: it equates two things to each other. In the sentence "That is a dog," 'is' is the copula. In the sentence "The dog is inside," you don't mean that 'the dog' and 'inside' are the same thing; you mean that the dog exists inside.

These two usages have different verbs in Japanese, so it'd be good to get used to it now. Here are some examples:

Using 'to be' as a copula:
 * That man is the president.
 * Joe is a salesman.
 * The dog is a golden retriever.
 * This paper is my report.

Using 'to be' to mean existence:
 * Sara is outside.
 * The plate is on the table.
 * The watch is on my wrist
 * They are at the mall.
 * There is John.

Origin of copula

 * で ある, or だ
 * to be (am, is, are)
 * The verb だ is a contraction of the で ある, which can replace the full form in any sentence, except in front of sentence-ending particle か, as will be noted later. The full form is mainly used in formal literature, such as a Wikipedia article. The ある verb itself means "to be, to have, to exist“, and で is a grammatical particle meaning "with". Adding these two words together into である literally translates as "existing with". Because all particles must take a noun, the Japanese である can not be used as widely as its English counterpart: である may only be used to describe attribute, not action (i.e., it cannot be used in constructions like "I am doing something" as a translation of "am").

The Japanese Copula
In Japanese, です (desu) is the copula. It is used to equate two things. Let's look into translating the sentence, "That is a pen," into Japanese.

Japanese uses subject-object-verb word order. This means that the copula and all other verbs come last in the sentence, after the object. If we were to form the English sentence in this way, it'd go like this: "That a pen is." This is a little unclear without some separation between the subject and the object. This brings us to particles.

Particles are small words which are simply used to denote what role a word plays in a sentence. There are quite a few particles, but we'll only concern ourselves with one of them for now—the topic marker, は (wa)*. This particle marks the topic and subject of the sentence. Incorporating this into our example, our sentence would become: "That は a pen is."

Finally, in order to complete the conversion to Japanese, we just need to translate the words themselves. 'Is', as I mentioned above, becomes です (desu). We can use それ (sore) and ペン (pen) for 'that' and 'pen', respectively. Now, our sentence is "それはペンです. " (sore wa pen desu.), which is a complete, understandable Japanese sentence.

* The topic-marker, は, is prounounced 'wa' even though it is written with the kana for 'ha'.

Existence
The other usage of the verb 'to be' is for existence. This gets slightly more difficult, as there are two verbs for existence: いる (iru) and ある (aru). Don't worry, though, it's pretty easy to differentiate between the two. いる (iru) is only used for animate objects, whereas ある (aru) is only used for inanimate objects. For example, you'd use いる (iru) for yourself, another person, or an animal, whereas you'd use ある (aru) for practically anything else, such as a pen, some paper, or a book.

In order to say, "I exist," or, "I am," (a sentence which will come in much more handy later) you'll follow a formula similar to what you did for the copula above. The verb always comes last, and the subject is marked with the topic marker, は (wa). わたし (watashi) is the pronoun for 'I', so the sentence, "I am," becomes "わたしはいる. " (watashi wa iru.).

You can use this exact form to say "the pen exists", but keep in mind that the pen is inanimate, so you must use ある (aru). The sentence becomes "ペンはある. " (pen wa aru.).

title: Japanese/Existence and Copula


text:
Talk:Japanese/Existence and Copula

Thoughts
I realized after I started on the topic of Existence that this page was getting a little loaded. So, it'd be fine with me to separate this up if ya want.

It's 2:30 am, so I don't really think my prose is up to snuff, but it should be decent. I'll look into cleaning it up a bit when I'm more awake. I just really wanted to get something up tonight, for some reason.

Anyway, the two things I debated with myself about for a bit:
 * 1) Whether to use は, or が.  Doesn't really matter to me, I was taught は first, and it seems to  be used with basic sentences more often.
 * 2) Plain versus Polite forms of verbs.  Now that I think back on it, it probably would've been better to use the polite forms, as it'd be better to teach them to conjugate those first, just cause it's easier.  But, truthfully, it doesn't really matter on this page, so if someone feels like going through and editing them all to います, and あります, then feel free.

--Xepo 06:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, I think it'll be better to be consistant; you used です so you might as well stay polite. --151.203.51.100 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Necessity of the だ copula
Compare these two sentences in the text:
 * 1) これ は ほん だ (uses the だ copula)
 * 2) きみ は つよい (doesn't use the copula)

My guess is that if you want to write "/noun/ is /adjective/" (example "you are strong"), either
 * 1) the だ copula is optional (which is ommited in the example), or
 * 2) the だ copula cannot be used

I think this should be explained and some accompanying samples should be added to the は section. My creations:
 * かのじょ は きれい (she is beautiful)
 * あの ぼうし は しろい (that hat is white)

I just learned these stuffs so if the examples are wrong please write out :). Agro1986 11:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There are two classes of adjectives. Unfortunately, there is no agreement about what to call these word classes in English.
 * i-adjectives (also called attributive verbs, etc). Notice the final i, which we will later learn conjugates. The copula だ cannot follow i-adjectives, although we will see that the polite form です can be used to indicate politeness.
 * つよい
 * しろい
 * na-adjectives (also called noun adjectives, attributive nouns, etc.) Like nouns, these words generally require some form of the copula, although there are rules for omitting だ in informal speech. (na comes from the use of な when these words are used in front of a noun,)
 * きれい　(the i here is part of the long ei and does not conjugate)
 * げんき
 * Your example above for きれい is missing the copula.
 * かのじょ は きれいだ. (She is beautiful.)
 * It would be best to avoid using かのじょ in examples since pronouns are usually omitted/avoided.
 * In summary, Japanese has these basic sentence structures.
 * [noun/ na-adjective] だ.
 * [i-adjective]
 * [verb]
 * These are all complete sentences. Note that だ may change form.
 * -ToothingLummox 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

である
There's another verb I've seen that acts as a copula, that one being である. Unless I'm mistaken, だ/です is actually a contraction of である. And there's also でございます. Should these be mentioned? --151.203.51.100 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You seem to be right. I've merged that bit in from another page. --Swift (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Japanese/Existence and Copula