text:
Francis Scott Key

Francis Scott Key (August 1, 1779 – January 11, 1843) was an American lawyer, author, and poet from Frederick, Maryland, best known as the author of the text of the American national anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner". Key observed the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814 during the War of 1812. He was inspired upon seeing the American flag still flying over the fort at dawn and wrote the poem "Defence of Fort M'Henry"; it was published within a week with the suggested tune of the popular song "To Anacreon in Heaven". The song with Key's lyrics became known as "The Star-Spangled Banner" and slowly gained in popularity as an unofficial anthem, finally achieving official status as the national anthem more than a century later under President Herbert Hoover.

Key was a lawyer in Maryland and Washington, D.C. for four decades and worked on important cases, including the Burr conspiracy trial, and he argued numerous times before the Supreme Court. He was nominated for District Attorney for the District of Columbia by President Andrew Jackson, where he served from 1833 to 1841. He was a devout Episcopalian.

Key owned slaves from 1800, during which time abolitionists ridiculed his words, claiming that America was more like the "Land of the Free and Home of the Oppressed". As District Attorney, he suppressed abolitionists, and he lost a case against Reuben Crandall in 1836 where he accused the defendant's abolitionist publications of instigating slaves to rebel. He was also a leader of the American Colonization Society which sent former slaves to Africa. He freed some of his slaves in the 1830s, paying one as his farm foreman to supervise his other slaves. He publicly criticized slavery and gave free legal representation to some slaves seeking freedom, but he also represented owners of runaway slaves. He had eight slaves at the time of his death.

Early life

Key was born into an affluent family. Key's father John Ross Key was a lawyer, a commissioned officer in the Continental Army, and a judge of English descent. His mother Ann Phoebe Dagworthy Charlton was born (February 6, 1756 – 1830), to Arthur Charlton, a tavern keeper, and his wife, Eleanor Harrison of Frederick in the colony of Maryland.

Key grew up on the family plantation Terra Rubra in Frederick County, Maryland, which is now Carroll County. He graduated from St.John's College, Annapolis, Maryland, in 1796 and read law under his uncle Philip Barton Key who was loyal to the British Crown during the War of Independence. He married Mary Tayloe Lloyd on January 1, 1802, daughter of Edward Lloyd IV of Wye House and Elizabeth Tayloe, daughter of John Tayloe II of Mount Airy and sister of John Tayloe III of The Octagon House. The couple raised their 11 children in their Georgetown residence, the Key House.

"The Star-Spangled Banner"
Key and Colonel John Stuart Skinner dined aboard HMS Tonnant (1798) on September 7, 1814, following the Burning of Washington in August. They were the guests of Vice-Admiral Alexander Cochrane, Rear-Admiral George Cockburn, and Major-General Robert Ross. Skinner and Key were there to plead for the release of Dr. William Beanes, a physician who resided in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and a friend of Key who had been captured in his home on August 28. Beanes was accused of aiding the detention of several British Army stragglers who were ransacking local homes in search of food. Skinner, Key, and the released Beanes were allowed to return under guard to their own truce ship, but they were not allowed to go ashore because they had become familiar with the strength and position of the British units and their intention to launch an attack on Baltimore. Key was unable to do anything but watch the 25-hour bombardment of the American forces at Fort McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore from dawn of September 13 to the next morning.

At dawn, Key was able to see a large American flag waving over the fort, and he started writing a poem about his experience on the back of a letter that he had kept in his pocket. On September 16, Key, Skinner, and Beanes were released from the fleet. When they arrived in Baltimore that evening, Key completed the poem in his room at the Indian Queen Hotel. His untitled and unsigned manuscript was printed as a broadside the next day under the title "Defence of Fort M'Henry”, with the notation: "Tune – Anacreon in Heaven". This was a popular tune that Key had already used as a setting for his 1805 song "When the Warrior Returns", celebrating American heroes of the First Barbary War. It was published in newspapers, first in Baltimore and then across the nation, under the new title The Star-Spangled Banner. It was somewhat difficult to sing, yet it became increasingly popular, competing with "Hail, Columbia" (1796) as the de facto national anthem by the time of the Mexican–American War and the American Civil War. The song was finally adopted as the American national anthem more than a century after its first publication by Act of Congress in 1931, signed by President Herbert Hoover.

Legal career
Key was a leading attorney in Frederick, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., for many years, with an extensive real estate and trial practice. He and his family settled in Georgetown in 1805 or 1806, near the new national capital. He assisted his uncle Philip Barton Key in the sensational conspiracy trial of Aaron Burr and in the expulsion of Senator John Smith of Ohio. He made the first of his many arguments before the United States Supreme Court in 1807. In 1808, he assisted President Thomas Jefferson's attorney general in United Statesv.Peters.

In 1829, Key assisted in the prosecution of Tobias Watkins, former U.S. Treasury auditor under President John Quincy Adams, for misappropriating public funds. He also handled the Petticoat affair concerning Secretary of War John Eaton, and he served as the attorney for Sam Houston in 1832 during his trial for assaulting Representative William Stanbery of Ohio. After years as an adviser to President Jackson, Key was nominated by the President to District Attorney for the District of Columbia in 1833. He served from 1833 to 1841 while also handling his own private legal cases. In 1835, he prosecuted Richard Lawrence for his attempt to assassinate President Jackson at the top steps of the Capitol, the first attempt to kill an American president.

Key and slavery
Key purchased his first slave in 1800 or 1801 and owned six slaves in 1820. He freed seven in the 1830s, and owned eight when he died. One of his freed slaves continued to work for him for wages as his farm's foreman, supervising several slaves. Key also represented several slaves seeking their freedom, as well as several slave-owners seeking return of their runaway slaves. Key was one of the executors of John Randolph of Roanoke's will, which freed his 400 slaves, and Key fought to enforce the will for the next decade and to provide the freedmen and women with land to support themselves.

Key is known to have publicly criticized slavery's cruelties, and a newspaper editorial stated that "he often volunteered to defend the downtrodden sons and daughters of Africa." The editor said that Key "convinced me that slavery was wrong—radically wrong".

A quote increasingly credited to Key stating that free black people are "a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community" is erroneous. The quote is taken from an 1838 letter that Key wrote to Reverend Benjamin Tappan of Maine who had sent Key a questionnaire about the attitudes of Southern religious institutions about slavery. Rather than representing a statement by Key identifying his personal thoughts, the words quoted are offered by Key to describe the attitudes of others who assert that former slaves could not remain in the U.S. as paid laborers. This was the official policy of the American Colonization Society. Key was an ACS leader and fundraiser for the organization, but he himself did not send the men and women he freed to Africa upon their emancipation. The original confusion around this quote arises from ambiguities in the 1937 biography of Key by Edward S. Delaplaine.

Key was a founding member and active leader of the American Colonization Society (ACS), whose primary goal was to send free black people to Africa. Though many free black people were born in the United States by this time, historians argue that upper-class American society, of which Key was a part, could never "envision a multiracial society". The ACS was not supported by most abolitionists or free black people of the time, but the organization's work would eventually lead to the creation of Liberia in 1847.

Anti-abolitionism
In the early 1830s American thinking on slavery changed quite abruptly. Considerable opposition to the American Colonization Society's project emerged. Led by newspaper editor and publisher William Lloyd Garrison, a growing portion of the population noted that only a very small number of free black people were actually moved, and they faced brutal conditions in West Africa, with very high mortality. Free Black people made it clear that few of them wanted to move, and if they did, it would be to Canada, Mexico, or Central America, not Africa. The leaders of the American Colonization Society, including Key, were predominantly slave owners. The Society was intended to preserve slavery, rather than eliminate it. In the words of philanthropist Gerrit Smith, it was "quite as much an Anti-Abolition, as Colonization Society". "This Colonization Society had, by an invisible process, half conscious, half unconscious, been transformed into a serviceable organ and member of the Slave Power."

The alternative to the colonization of Africa, project of the American Colonization Society, was the total and immediate abolition of slavery in the United States. This Key was firmly against, with or without slave owner compensation, and he used his position as District Attorney to attack abolitionists. In 1833, he secured a grand jury indictment against Benjamin Lundy, editor of the anti-slavery publication Genius of Universal Emancipation, and his printer William Greer, for libel after Lundy published an article that declared, "There is neither mercy nor justice for colored people in this district [of Columbia]". Lundy's article, Key said in the indictment, "was intended to injure, oppress, aggrieve, and vilify the good name, fame, credit & reputation of the Magistrates and constables" of Washington. Lundy left town rather than face trial; Greer was acquitted.

Prosecution of Reuben Crandall
In a larger unsuccessful prosecution, in August 1836 Key obtained an indictment against Reuben Crandall, brother of controversial Connecticut teacher Prudence Crandall, who had recently moved to Washington, D.C. It accused Crandall of "seditious libel" after two marshals (who operated as slave catchers in their off hours) found Crandall had a trunk full of anti-slavery publications in his Georgetown residence and office, five days after the Snow riot, caused by rumors that a mentally ill slave had attempted to kill an elderly white woman. In an April 1837 trial that attracted nationwide attention and that congressmen attended, Key charged that Crandall's publications instigated slaves to rebel. Crandall's attorneys acknowledged he opposed slavery, but denied any intent or actions to encourage rebellion. Evidence was introduced that the anti-slavery publications were packing materials used by his landlady in shipping his possessions to him. He had not "published" anything; he had given one copy to one man who had asked for it.

Key, in his final address to the jury said:

"Are you willing, gentlemen, to abandon your country, to permit it to be taken from you, and occupied by the abolitionist, according to whose taste it is to associate and amalgamate with the negro? Or, gentlemen, on the other hand, are there laws in this community to defend you from the immediate abolitionist, who would open upon you the floodgates of such extensive wickedness and mischief?"

The jury acquitted Crandall of all charges. This public and humiliating defeat, as well as family tragedies in 1835, diminished Key's political ambition. He resigned as District Attorney in 1840. He remained a staunch proponent of African colonization and a strong critic of the abolition movement until his death.

Crandall died shortly after his acquittal of pneumonia contracted in the Washington jail.

Religion
Key was a devout and prominent Episcopalian. In his youth, he almost became an Episcopal priest rather than a lawyer. Throughout his life he sprinkled biblical references in his correspondence. He was active in All Saints Parish in Frederick, Maryland, near his family's home. He also helped found or financially support several parishes in the new national capital, including St. John's Episcopal Church in Georgetown, Trinity Episcopal Church in present-day Judiciary Square, and Christ Church in Alexandria (at the time, in the District of Columbia). He was described as a "devoted and intimate friend" of Bishop William Meade of Virginia, and his "good literary taste" was credited for the quality of the church's hymnal.

From 1818 until his death in 1843, Key was associated with the American Bible Society. He successfully opposed an abolitionist resolution presented to that group around 1838.

Key also helped found two Episcopal seminaries, one in Baltimore and the other across the Potomac River in Alexandria (the Virginia Theological Seminary). Key also published a prose work called The Power of Literature, and Its Connection with Religion, in 1834.

Death and legacy

On January 11, 1843, Key died at the home of his daughter Elizabeth Howard in Baltimore from pleurisy at age 63. He was initially interred in Old Saint Paul's Cemetery in the vault of John Eager Howard but in 1866, his body was moved to his family plot in Frederick at Mount Olivet Cemetery.

The Key Monument Association erected a memorial in 1898 and the remains of both Francis Scott Key and his wife, Mary Tayloe Lloyd, were placed in a crypt in the base of the monument.

Despite several efforts to preserve it, the Francis Scott Key residence was ultimately dismantled in1947. The residence had been located at 3516–18MStreet in Georgetown.

Though Key had written poetry from time to time, often with heavily religious themes, these works were not collected and published until 14years after his death. Two of his religious poems used as Christian hymns include "Before the Lord We Bow" and "Lord, with Glowing Heart I'd Praise Thee".

In1806, Key's sister, Anne Phoebe Charlton Key, married Roger B. Taney, who would later become Chief Justice of the United States. In 1846 one daughter, Alice, married U.S. Senator George H. Pendleton and another, Ellen Lloyd, married Simon F. Blunt. In1859, Key's son Philip Barton Key II, who also served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, was shot and killed by Daniel Sickles—a U.S.Representative from New York who would serve as a general in the American Civil War—after he discovered that Philip Barton Key was having an affair with his wife. Sickles was acquitted in the first use of the temporary insanity defense. In1861, Key's grandson Francis Key Howard was imprisoned in Fort McHenry with the Mayor of Baltimore George William Brown and other locals deemed to be Confederate sympathizers.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, whose full name was Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was a distant cousin and the namesake of Key. Key's direct descendants include geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan, guitarist Dana Key, and American fashion designer and socialite Pauline de Rothschild.

Monuments and memorials

 * Francis Scott Key Monument in Baltimore, Maryland costed approximately $25,000 and it was designed by French sculptor Antonin Mercié, it was erected in the city in 1911.
 * Two bridges were named in his honor:
 * The first is between the Rosslyn section of Arlington County, Virginia, and Georgetown in Washington, D.C., where Key had lived. The home, which was dismantled in 1947 as part of construction of the Whitehurst Freeway, was located on M Street NW, in the area between the Key Bridge and the intersection of M Street and Whitehurst Freeway, as is illustrated on a sign in nearby Francis Scott Key park.
 * The other bridge was part of the Baltimore Beltway crossing the outer harbor of Baltimore, and was located at the approximate point where the British anchored to shell Fort McHenry. It stood until March 26, 2024, when it was destroyed by a cargo ship.
 * St. John's College, Annapolis, from which Key graduated in 1796, has an auditorium named in his honor.
 * Francis Scott Key was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1970.
 * He is buried at Mount Olivet Cemetery in Frederick, the same resting place as that of Thomas Johnson, the first governor of Maryland, and friend Barbara Fritchie, who allegedly waved the American flag out of her home in defiance of Stonewall Jackson's march through the city during the Civil War.
 * Francis Scott Key Hall at the University of Maryland, College Park is named in his honor. The George Washington University also has a residence hall in Key's honor at the corner of 20th and F Streets.
 * Francis Scott Key High School in rural Carroll County, Maryland.
 * Francis Scott Key Middle School in Houston, Texas
 * Francis Scott Key Middle School in Silver Spring, Maryland
 * Francis Scott Key Elementary School (several, including California, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C.); Francis Scott Key School in Philadelphia.
 * Francis Scott Key Mall in Frederick, Frederick County, Maryland.
 * The Frederick Keys minor league baseball team – a Baltimore affiliate – is named after Key.
 * The World War II Liberty ship SS Francis Scott Key was named in his honor.
 * The US Navy named a submarine in his honor, the USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN-657).
 * A monument to Francis Scott Key was commissioned by San Francisco businessman James Lick, who donated some $60,000 for a sculpture of Key to be raised in Golden Gate Park. The nation's first memorial to Francis Scott Key, the travertine monument was executed by sculptor William W. Story in Rome in 1885–87. The city of San Francisco allocated some US$140,000 to renovate the Key monument, and repairs had been finished on the monument. The statue was toppled by protesters on June 19, 2020. It has been replaced by 350 black steel sculptures—each 4 ft high—that honor the first 350 Africans kidnapped and forced onto a slave ship headed across the Atlantic from Angola to Virginia in 1619. The sculptor is Dana King.

title: Francis Scott Key


text:
FSU

FSU may refer to:

 * Florida State University, a large public research university in Tallahassee, Florida
 * Ferris State University, Michigan
 * Frostburg State University, Maryland
 * Fayetteville State University, North Carolina
 * Fairmont State University, West Virginia
 * Fitchburg State University, Massachusetts
 * Framingham State University, Massachusetts
 * Friends Stand United, street gang
 * Finance Sector Union, Australian trade union
 * Financial Services Union, Irish trade union
 * Fédération Syndicale Unitaire, French trade union
 * Former Soviet Union, collective term for the fifteen countries that formed the Soviet Union until 1991
 * Fuse-Switch-Unit, opposite of SFU, relating to the order an electrical fuse is inserted in a circuit

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

title: FSU


text:
Formal language

In logic, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics, a formal language consists of words whose letters are taken from an alphabet and are well-formed according to a specific set of rules called a formal grammar.

The alphabet of a formal language consists of symbols, letters, or tokens that concatenate into strings called words. Words that belong to a particular formal language are sometimes called well-formed words or well-formed formulas. A formal language is often defined by means of a formal grammar such as a regular grammar or context-free grammar, which consists of its formation rules.

In computer science, formal languages are used, among others, as the basis for defining the grammar of programming languages and formalized versions of subsets of natural languages, in which the words of the language represent concepts that are associated with meanings or semantics. In computational complexity theory, decision problems are typically defined as formal languages, and complexity classes are defined as the sets of the formal languages that can be parsed by machines with limited computational power. In logic and the foundations of mathematics, formal languages are used to represent the syntax of axiomatic systems, and mathematical formalism is the philosophy that all of mathematics can be reduced to the syntactic manipulation of formal languages in this way.

The field of formal language theory studies primarily the purely syntactic aspects of such languages—that is, their internal structural patterns. Formal language theory sprang out of linguistics, as a way of understanding the syntactic regularities of natural languages.

History
In the 17th century, Gottfried Leibniz imagined and described the characteristica universalis, a universal and formal language which utilised pictographs. Later, Carl Friedrich Gauss investigated the problem of Gauss codes.

Gottlob Frege attempted to realize Leibniz's ideas, through a notational system first outlined in Begriffsschrift (1879) and more fully developed in his 2-volume Grundgesetze der Arithmetik (1893/1903). This described a "formal language of pure language."

In the first half of the 20th century, several developments were made with relevance to formal languages. Axel Thue published four papers relating to words and language between 1906 and 1914. The last of these introduced what Emil Post later termed 'Thue Systems', and gave an early example of an undecidable problem. Post would later use this paper as the basis for a 1947 proof "that the word problem for semigroups was recursively insoluble", and later devised the canonical system for the creation of formal languages.

In 1907, Leonardo Torres Quevedo introduced a formal language for the description of mechanical drawings (mechanical devices), in Vienna. He published "Sobre un sistema de notaciones y símbolos destinados a facilitar la descripción de las máquinas" ("On a system of notations and symbols intended to facilitate the description of machines"). Heinz Zemanek rated it as an equivalent to a programming language for the numerical control of machine tools.

Noam Chomsky devised an abstract representation of formal and natural languages, known as the Chomsky hierarchy. In 1959 John Backus developed the Backus-Naur form to describe the syntax of a high level programming language, following his work in the creation of FORTRAN. Peter Naur was the secretary/editor for the ALGOL60 Report in which he used Backus–Naur form to describe the Formal part of ALGOL60.

Words over an alphabet
An alphabet, in the context of formal languages, can be any set; its elements are called letters. An alphabet may contain an infinite number of elements; however, most definitions in formal language theory specify alphabets with a finite number of elements, and many results apply only to them. It often makes sense to use an alphabet in the usual sense of the word, or more generally any finite character encoding such as ASCII or Unicode.

A word over an alphabet can be any finite sequence (i.e., string) of letters. The set of all words over an alphabet Σ is usually denoted by Σ* (using the Kleene star). The length of a word is the number of letters it is composed of. For any alphabet, there is only one word of length 0, the empty word, which is often denoted by e, ε, λ or even Λ. By concatenation one can combine two words to form a new word, whose length is the sum of the lengths of the original words. The result of concatenating a word with the empty word is the original word.

In some applications, especially in logic, the alphabet is also known as the vocabulary and words are known as formulas or sentences; this breaks the letter/word metaphor and replaces it by a word/sentence metaphor.

Definition
A formal language L over an alphabet Σ is a subset of Σ*, that is, a set of words over that alphabet. Sometimes the sets of words are grouped into expressions, whereas rules and constraints may be formulated for the creation of 'well-formed expressions'.

In computer science and mathematics, which do not usually deal with natural languages, the adjective "formal" is often omitted as redundant.

While formal language theory usually concerns itself with formal languages that are described by some syntactic rules, the actual definition of the concept "formal language" is only as above: a (possibly infinite) set of finite-length strings composed from a given alphabet, no more and no less. In practice, there are many languages that can be described by rules, such as regular languages or context-free languages. The notion of a formal grammar may be closer to the intuitive concept of a "language", one described by syntactic rules. By an abuse of the definition, a particular formal language is often thought of as being accompanied with a formal grammar that describes it.

Examples
The following rules describe a formal language $L$ over the alphabet Σ = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, +, =}: Under these rules, the string "23+4=555" is in $L$, but the string "=234=+" is not. This formal language expresses natural numbers, well-formed additions, and well-formed addition equalities, but it expresses only what they look like (their syntax), not what they mean (semantics). For instance, nowhere in these rules is there any indication that "0" means the number zero, "+" means addition, "23+4=555" is false, etc.
 * Every nonempty string that does not contain "+" or "=" and does not start with "0" is in $L$.
 * The string "0" is in $L$.
 * A string containing "=" is in $L$ if and only if there is exactly one "=", and it separates two valid strings of $L$.
 * A string containing "+" but not "=" is in $L$ if and only if every "+" in the string separates two valid strings of $L$.
 * No string is in $L$ other than those implied by the previous rules.

Constructions
For finite languages, one can explicitly enumerate all well-formed words. For example, we can describe a language $L$ as just $L$ = {a, b, ab, cba}. The degenerate case of this construction is the empty language, which contains no words at all ( $L$ = ∅ ).

However, even over a finite (non-empty) alphabet such as Σ = {a, b} there are an infinite number of finite-length words that can potentially be expressed: "a", "abb", "ababba", "aaababbbbaab", .... Therefore, formal languages are typically infinite, and describing an infinite formal language is not as simple as writing L = {a, b, ab, cba}. Here are some examples of formal languages:
 * $L$ = Σ*, the set of all words over Σ;
 * $L$ = {a}* = {an}, where n ranges over the natural numbers and "an" means "a" repeated n times (this is the set of words consisting only of the symbol "a");
 * the set of syntactically correct programs in a given programming language (the syntax of which is usually defined by a context-free grammar);
 * the set of inputs upon which a certain Turing machine halts; or
 * the set of maximal strings of alphanumeric ASCII characters on this line, i.e., the set {the, set, of, maximal, strings, alphanumeric, ASCII, characters, on, this, line, i, e}.

Language-specification formalisms
Formal languages are used as tools in multiple disciplines. However, formal language theory rarely concerns itself with particular languages (except as examples), but is mainly concerned with the study of various types of formalisms to describe languages. For instance, a language can be given as
 * those strings generated by some formal grammar;
 * those strings described or matched by a particular regular expression;
 * those strings accepted by some automaton, such as a Turing machine or finite-state automaton;
 * those strings for which some decision procedure (an algorithm that asks a sequence of related YES/NO questions) produces the answer YES.

Typical questions asked about such formalisms include:

 * What is their expressive power? (Can formalism X describe every language that formalism Y can describe? Can it describe other languages?)
 * What is their recognizability? (How difficult is it to decide whether a given word belongs to a language described by formalism X?)
 * What is their comparability? (How difficult is it to decide whether two languages, one described in formalism X and one in formalism Y, or in X again, are actually the same language?).

Surprisingly often, the answer to these decision problems is "it cannot be done at all", or "it is extremely expensive" (with a characterization of how expensive). Therefore, formal language theory is a major application area of computability theory and complexity theory. Formal languages may be classified in the Chomsky hierarchy based on the expressive power of their generative grammar as well as the complexity of their recognizing automaton. Context-free grammars and regular grammars provide a good compromise between expressivity and ease of parsing, and are widely used in practical applications.

Operations on languages
Certain operations on languages are common. This includes the standard set operations, such as union, intersection, and complement. Another class of operation is the element-wise application of string operations.

Examples: suppose $$L_1$$ and $$L_2$$ are languages over some common alphabet $$\Sigma$$.
 * The concatenation $$L_1 \cdot L_2$$ consists of all strings of the form $$vw$$ where $$v$$ is a string from $$L_1$$ and $$w$$ is a string from $$L_2$$.
 * The intersection $$L_1 \cap L_2$$ of $$L_1$$ and $$L_2$$ consists of all strings that are contained in both languages
 * The complement $$\neg L_1$$ of $$L_1$$ with respect to $$\Sigma$$ consists of all strings over $$\Sigma$$ that are not in $$L_1$$.
 * The Kleene star: the language consisting of all words that are concatenations of zero or more words in the original language;
 * Reversal:
 * Let ε be the empty word, then $$\varepsilon^R = \varepsilon$$, and
 * for each non-empty word $$w = \sigma_1 \cdots \sigma_n$$ (where $$\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_n$$are elements of some alphabet), let $$w^R = \sigma_n \cdots \sigma_1$$,
 * then for a formal language $$L$$, $$L^R = \{ w^R \mid w \in L \}$$.
 * String homomorphism

Such string operations are used to investigate closure properties of classes of languages. A class of languages is closed under a particular operation when the operation, applied to languages in the class, always produces a language in the same class again. For instance, the context-free languages are known to be closed under union, concatenation, and intersection with regular languages, but not closed under intersection or complement. The theory of trios and abstract families of languages studies the most common closure properties of language families in their own right.

 * {| class="wikitable"

! Operation ! ! Regular ! DCFL ! CFL ! IND ! CSL ! recursive ! RE
 * + align="top"|Closure properties of language families ($$L_1$$ Op $$L_2$$ where both $$L_1$$ and $$L_2$$ are in the language family given by the column). After Hopcroft and Ullman.
 * Union
 * $$L_1 \cup L_2 = \{w \mid w \in L_1 \lor w \in L_2\} $$
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Intersection
 * $$L_1 \cap L_2 = \{w \mid w \in L_1 \land w \in L_2\}$$
 * Yes
 * No
 * No
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Complement
 * $$\neg L_1 = \{w \mid w \not\in L_1\}$$
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No
 * Concatenation
 * $$L_1\cdot L_2 = \{wz \mid w \in L_1 \land z \in L_2\}$$
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Kleene star
 * $$L_1^{*} = \{\varepsilon\} \cup \{wz \mid w \in L_1 \land z \in L_1^{*}\}$$
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * (String) homomorphism $$h$$
 * $$h(L_1) = \{h(w) \mid w \in L_1\}$$
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No
 * No
 * Yes
 * ε-free (string) homomorphism $$h$$
 * $$h(L_1) = \{h(w) \mid w \in L_1\}$$
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Substitution $$\varphi$$
 * $$\varphi(L_1) = \bigcup_{\sigma_1 \cdots \sigma_n \in L_1} \varphi(\sigma_1) \cdot \ldots \cdot \varphi(\sigma_n)$$
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Inverse homomorphism $$h^{-1}$$
 * $$h^{-1}(L_1) = \bigcup_{w \in L_1} h^{-1}(w)$$
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Reverse
 * $$L^R = \{w^R \mid w \in L\} $$
 * Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Intersection with a regular language $$R$$
 * $$L \cap R = \{w \mid w \in L \land w \in R\}$$
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Intersection with a regular language $$R$$
 * $$L \cap R = \{w \mid w \in L \land w \in R\}$$
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes

 * }

Programming languages
A compiler usually has two distinct components. A lexical analyzer, sometimes generated by a tool like, identifies the tokens of the programming language grammar, e.g. identifiers or keywords, numeric and string literals, punctuation and operator symbols, which are themselves specified by a simpler formal language, usually by means of regular expressions. At the most basic conceptual level, a parser, sometimes generated by a parser generator like, attempts to decide if the source program is syntactically valid, that is if it is well formed with respect to the programming language grammar for which the compiler was built.

Of course, compilers do more than just parse the source code – they usually translate it into some executable format. Because of this, a parser usually outputs more than a yes/no answer, typically an abstract syntax tree. This is used by subsequent stages of the compiler to eventually generate an executable containing machine code that runs directly on the hardware, or some intermediate code that requires a virtual machine to execute.

Formal theories, systems, and proofs

In mathematical logic, a formal theory is a set of sentences expressed in a formal language.

A formal system (also called a logical calculus, or a logical system) consists of a formal language together with a deductive apparatus (also called a deductive system). The deductive apparatus may consist of a set of transformation rules, which may be interpreted as valid rules of inference, or a set of axioms, or have both. A formal system is used to derive one expression from one or more other expressions. Although a formal language can be identified with its formulas, a formal system cannot be likewise identified by its theorems. Two formal systems $$\mathcal{FS}$$ and $$\mathcal{FS'}$$ may have all the same theorems and yet differ in some significant proof-theoretic way (a formula A may be a syntactic consequence of a formula B in one but not another for instance).

A formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of well-formed formulas (which may be interpreted as sentences, or propositions) each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding formulas in the sequence by a rule of inference. The last sentence in the sequence is a theorem of a formal system. Formal proofs are useful because their theorems can be interpreted as true propositions.

Interpretations and models
Formal languages are entirely syntactic in nature, but may be given semantics that give meaning to the elements of the language. For instance, in mathematical logic, the set of possible formulas of a particular logic is a formal language, and an interpretation assigns a meaning to each of the formulas—usually, a truth value.

The study of interpretations of formal languages is called formal semantics. In mathematical logic, this is often done in terms of model theory. In model theory, the terms that occur in a formula are interpreted as objects within mathematical structures, and fixed compositional interpretation rules determine how the truth value of the formula can be derived from the interpretation of its terms; a model for a formula is an interpretation of terms such that the formula becomes true.

title: Formal language


text:
Free to Choose

Free to Choose: A Personal Statement is a 1980 book by economists Milton and Rose D. Friedman, accompanied by a ten-part series broadcast on public television, that advocates free market principles. It was primarily a response to an earlier landmark book and television series The Age of Uncertainty, by the noted economist John Kenneth Galbraith.

Overview
Free to Choose: A Personal Statement maintains that the free market works best for all members of a society, provides examples of how the free market engenders prosperity, and maintains that it can solve problems where other approaches have failed. Published in January 1980, the 297 page book contains 10 chapters. The book was on top of the United States best sellers list for 5 weeks.

PBS broadcast the programs, beginning in January 1980. It was filmed at the invitation of Robert Chitester, the owner of WQLN-TV. It was based on a 15-part series of taped public lectures and question-and-answer sessions. The general format was that of Milton Friedman visiting and narrating a number of success and failure stories in history, which he attributes to free-market capitalism or the lack thereof (e.g., Hong Kong is commended for its free markets, while India is excoriated for relying on centralized planning especially for its protection of its traditional textile industry). Following the primary show, Friedman would engage in discussion moderated by Robert McKenzie with a number of selected debaters drawn from trade unions, academy and the business community, such as Donald Rumsfeld (then of G.D. Searle & Company) and Frances Fox Piven of City University of New York. The interlocutors would offer objections to or support for the proposals put forward by Friedman, who would in turn respond. After the final episode, Friedman sat down for an interview with Lawrence Spivak.

Guest debaters
Guest debaters included:

 * Gregory Anrig (Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Education) – Episode 6
 * Jagdish Bhagwati (economist) – Episode 2
 * Samuel Bowles (economist) – Vol. 3 Episode 5
 * William H. Brady (Founder and President of W.H. Brady Co.) – Episode 8
 * Clarence J. Brown (politician) – Episode 9
 * Joan Claybrook (Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) – Episode 7
 * Barber Conable (politician, President of the World Bank) – Episode 1
 * John Coons (law professor, school choice activist) – Episode 6
 * Robert Crandall (Brookings Institution economist) – Episode 7
 * Richard Deason (IBEW union leader) – Episode 2
 * James R. Dumpson (bureaucrat, social worker, academic) – Episode 4
 * Otmar Emminger (President of Deutsche Bundesbank) – Episode 9
 * Bob Galvin (CEO of Motorola, Inc.) – Episode 1
 * Ernest Green (U.S. Assistant Secretary of Labor) – Episode 8
 * Michael Harrington (author, academic, activist) – Episode 1
 * Nicholas von Hoffman (journalist, political commentator/columnist) – Episode 3
 * Helen Hughes (economist) – Episode 2
 * Peter Jay (economist, journalist, diplomat) – Episodes 3, 5
 * Robert Lampman (economist) – Episode 4
 * Richard Landau (medical professor) – Episode 7
 * Robert Lekachman (economist) – Episode 3
 * William McChesney Martin (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve) – Episode 9
 * Helen Bohen O'Bannon (economist, bureaucrat, social worker) – Episode 4
 * Kathleen O'Reilly (Consumer Federation of America consumer advocate) – Episode 7
 * Russell W. Peterson (chemist, politician) – Episode 1
 * Frances Fox Piven (academic) – Episode 5
 * Donald Rumsfeld (politician, President of G. D. Searle & Company) – Episode 2
 * Albert Shanker (President of United Federation of Teachers and American Federation of Teachers teachers' unions) – Episode 6
 * Thomas Shannon (Executive Director of the National School Boards Association) – Episode 6
 * Thomas Sowell (economist, author, columnist) – Episodes 4, 5
 * Beryl Wayne Sprinkel (Executive Vice President of Harris Bank) – Episode 9
 * Peter Temin (economist) – Episode 3
 * Lynn R. Williams (International Secretary of United Steelworkers) – Episode 8
 * Walter E. Williams (economist, political commentator) – Episode 8

1990 rebroadcast
The series was rebroadcast in 1990 with Linda Chavez moderating the episodes. Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Shultz, Ronald Reagan, David D. Friedman, and Steve Allen, each give personal introductions for one episode. This time, after the documentary segment, Milton Friedman sits down with a single discussion participant to debate the points raised in the episode.

Positions advocated
The Friedmans advocate laissez-faire economic policies, often criticizing interventionist government policies and their cost in personal freedoms and economic efficiency in the United States and abroad. They argue that international free trade has been restricted through tariffs and protectionism while domestic free trade and freedom have been limited through high taxation and regulation. They cite the 19th-century United Kingdom, the United States before the Great Depression, and modern Hong Kong as ideal examples of a minimalist economic policy. They contrast the economic growth of Japan after the Meiji Restoration and the economic stagnation of India after its independence from the British Empire, and argue that India has performed worse despite its superior economic potential due to its centralized planning. They argue that even countries with command economies, including the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, have been forced to adopt limited market mechanisms in order to operate. The authors argue against government taxation on gas and tobacco and government regulation of the public school systems. The Friedmans argue that the Federal Reserve exacerbated the Great Depression by neglecting to prevent the decline of the money supply in the years leading up to it. They further argue that the American public falsely perceived the Depression to be a result of a failure of capitalism rather than the government, and that the Depression allowed the Federal Reserve Board to centralize its control of the monetary system despite its responsibility for it.

On the subject of welfare, the Friedmans argue that the United States has maintained a higher degree of freedom and productivity by avoiding the nationalizations and extensive welfare systems of Western European countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden. However, they also argue that welfare practices since the New Deal under "the HEW empire" have been harmful. They argue that public assistance programs have become larger than originally envisioned and are creating "wards of the state" as opposed to "self-reliant individuals." They also argue that the Social Security System is fundamentally flawed, that urban renewal and public housing programs have contributed to racial inequality and diminished quality of low-income housing, and that Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for rising healthcare prices in the United States. They suggest completely replacing the welfare state with a negative income tax as a less harmful alternative.

The Friedmans also argue that declining academic performance in the United States is the result of increasing government control of the American education system tracing back to the 1840s, but suggest a voucher system as a politically feasible solution. They blame the 1970s recession and lower quality of consumer goods on extensive business regulations since the 1960s, and advocate abolishing the Food and Drug Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Amtrak, and Conrail. They argue that the energy crisis would be resolved by abolishing the Department of Energy and price floors on crude oil. They recommend replacing the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental regulation with an effluent charge. They criticize labor unions for raising prices and lowering demand by enforcing high wage levels, and for contributing to unemployment by limiting jobs. They argue that inflation is caused by excessive government spending, the Federal Reserve's attempts to control interest rates, and full employment policy. They call for tighter control of Fed money supply despite the fact that it will result in a temporary period of high unemployment and low growth due to the interruption of the wage-price spiral. In the final chapter, they take note of recent current events that seem to suggest a return to free-market principles in academic thought and public opinion, and argue in favor of an "economic Bill of Rights" to cement the changes.

Video chapters (1980 version)

 * 1) The Power of the Market
 * 2) The Tyranny of Control
 * 3) Anatomy of Crisis
 * 4) From Cradle to Grave
 * 5) Created Equal
 * 6) What's Wrong with Our Schools?
 * 7) Who Protects the Consumer?
 * 8) Who Protects the Worker?
 * 9) How to Cure Inflation
 * 10) How to Stay Free

Video chapters (1990 version)

 * 1) The Power of the Market – Introduction by Arnold Schwarzenegger
 * 2) The Tyranny of Control – Introduction by George Shultz
 * 3) Freedom and Prosperity (featured only in the 1990 version) – Introduction by Ronald Reagan
 * 4) The Failure of Socialism (original title: "What's Wrong With Our Schools?") – Introduction by David D. Friedman
 * 5) Created Equal – Introduction by Steve Allen

title: Free to Choose


text:
Talk:Foreign Service Level 3

Whose Foreign Service anyway? British, I presume.

I think it may be American, from context on Esperanto.

-- This really doesn't belong on its own page... it should be redirected to U.S. Foreign Service Language Fluency Levels (or something similar -- does this system have an official name), and FSL 1 and 2 and however many others there are should be included there as well... -- SJK

title: Talk:Foreign Service Level 3


text:
Talk:Formula One

Regarding map of Grand Prix host countries
You have removed a map that displays the countries that have hosted a Formula One Grand Prix from this article along with this one and this one, insisting it to be "propaganda", I assume because Crimea is grouped together with Russia. Firstly, regarding your edit summary, I never suggested there was an obligation to stick with the default – however, it is indeed true that disputed territories by default are grouped into the country who has the de facto administrative power in the region, even though you failed to include that part in your quote from the blank map documentation. It is not "propaganda", it's been left to the default based on commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, as explained by SSSB in deletion request from last year. If you disagree with how the map handles international disputes, you are much better off initiating a new discussion on Commons on how the map should be coloured, rather than removing the map entirely from various Wikipedia articles. As an experienced editor, you should know that your personal disapproval with the grouping of Crimea is not grounds for complete WP:REMOVAL.

Pinging    for some opinions so that this doesn't become an edit war between two people. Ved havet 🌊  ( talk ) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Map is not propaganda. It sums up where Formula One Grands Prix have taken place in the World so far, including those in past seasons such as Africa countries. Island92 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 * This has been a contentious issue for years but at the end of the day we're trying to show where the World Championship competes and has competed in a graphical form. What we aren't trying to do is show a politically-accurate map of the world. The deletion discussion is quite clear; there is no policy-backed reason to remove the map. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The only neutral point of view are the borders according to international law (the law also Russia is bound to by being a member of the UN). Showing the borders a nation wants to establish by forcibly breaking international law surely can not be neutral in any way, we support the point of view of Russia by this.

Thanks to this discussion I now have found this RfC and its preceding discussion from 2019/2020 for the article 2020 Formula One World Championship. Of course this only applies for this specific article, but the result is still interesting for this dispute here, too. The majority was against a colored map for various reasons and a map was suggested that only shows dots for the venues. I will ping all users that have participated in this RfC (as far as they haven't been pinged already by Ved havet): @Scjessey, @Tvx1, @DeFacto, @Sjones23. I also ping the creator of this map (@Cherkash) and @Unas964 and @RMN120501 (sorry if I have forgotten someone).

Another interesting point that should also be considered: The FIA itself sees the Crimea as part of Ukraine. Chaddy (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 * We're not "supporting" anyone, we're sticking to the current, de facto situation in the world. It's a statement about what the situation is, not what it rightfully should be. E.g., the article of Afghanistan using the Taliban flag is not the same as Wikipedia "supporting" the Taliban regime. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What the FIA thinks is irrelevant, as we are not the FIA. The funny thing is that you quoted commons:File talk:BlankMap-World.svg/Documentation where it says "It is left to the user to decide how to color them", but this doesn't support your view. It supports continung to colour the Crimea as part of Russia, as this is what was decided by the user who created the map (Cherkash). Finally, colouring based on de Facto vs. de Jure is equally neutral, and equally not propaganda. In fact, Chaddy, you are the one who is slippy into non-neutrality and propaganda by insiting we colour a map based on your political opinion, this is made worse by the fact you aren't consistently supporting de jure, as you have no problem with the de facto shadding of Taiwan (whoch, if we followed international law (or at least recognition), would be coloured as part of China). SSSB (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * International law is not my "political opinion", it's the basement of all international relations. But interestingly, exactly this is Russians strategy: Implying that international law just would be a "political opinion" which could legally be relativised by another "political opinion". And also whataboutism isn't helful. Taiwan is not the topic of this discussion here. You can start another discussion on the Taiwan subject. Chaddy (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Crimea is not the topic of discussion here, the topic of discussion is the map, so Taiwan is as relevant as Crimea. You cannot have it both ways. International law is politics, when countries decided on how they view the Crimea, they decided based on political alliances and international relations. The fact that you insist on showing the Crimea based on international law, but you aren't applying this argument consistently across the map shows that your arguement is based on your political opinion. Wikipedia is not the place for political opinions. SSSB (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course the Crimea is topic of this discussion here. It is the reason why these maps are disputed since years.
 * International law is not politics, it is law. Of course, governments ignore it when they want to. But the rules themselves are clear. You can not ignore this fact and tell the opposite.
 * You don't know anything about my political opinion. Please stop speculating about it.
 * All in all, your discussion stretegy is unfair and destructive. I only see whataboutism and derailing here from you. Please stop this. Chaddy (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic of the discussion is the map. This is where your problem lies. I don't dispute the fact that international law is clear, but if you insist the map follows international law, then you should insist it does so consistently. Otherwise your entire argument is fundamentally flawed, if you insist on one rule for Crimea, but are happy to apply a different rule to everyone else. The fact that you don't means you are turning a black-and-white issue (what rule set should we apply to the map) into a political argument (which territories should be coloured to international law, and which shouldn't). This isn't "whataboutism" from me, you are refusing to acknowledge that your complaint has wider implications. SSSB (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not play your whataboutism game. It is too obvious what you are trying here. But this will not work. Chaddy (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is playing whataboutism. We're simply pointing out to you that international law was NEVER a factor for this map. We only ever cared about sporting nations acknowledged by this sport's governing body. Again, see my example of the FIFA maps and the United Kingdom. And the map you linked to doesn't prove anything. It has full lines seperating England, Wales and Scotland from one another, even though we know that the FIA only recognizes the United Kingdom as the nation covering that territory.Tvx1 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The only neutral point of view to represent the borders of sporting nations is to reflect the borders shown by that sport’s governing body. Since the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia, and thus the Russian Automobile Federation responsible for governing motorsport in Crimea, we should reflect. For the exact same reason we do not draw the United Kingdom as one country, per the UN/international law, but we draw England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate nations, per the FIFA.Tvx1 10:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The FIA considers Crimea part of Ukriane as I have proven. Chaddy (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't proven anything. Your "proof" is WP:OR. I also seem to remember (from previous discussions) that the race programmes for the Russian Grand Prix showed Crimea as Russian. SSSB (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting interpretation of OR...
 * Here again my evidence: . Chaddy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:OR. WP:OR states "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source. The source doesn't explicitly state how the FIA consider the Crimea, hence it is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source." - Really? Have I to explain you how a map works? Chaddy (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The prenense or absense of a line on a map is WP:OR, it only implies what the FIA's stance is, it doesn't explicitly state it, and therefore it is WP:OR. And cut the patronising attitude, especially as your wrong. While we are on the subject of the map. Kosovo is listed as an FIA member, but it's borders aren't on the map. Does this mean that the FIA doesn't recognise Kosovo, of course not, because it is an FIA member. Proof that the map proves nothing, as it completely contradicts what it does/doesn't recognise. SSSB (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are (dotted) borders for Kosovo on this map. Do me a favour and stop your desinformation. Chaddy (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All of this bullshit above is why the map shouldn't have the countries, only the venues. It's also worth noting that for many races (though not all, of course) the country has nothing to do with the race, which is normally arranged by a promoter and/or circuit independent of their government or nation. Take the countries out of the equation and the arguments go away. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scjessey: +1 I also think this could solve this dispute. Chaddy (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I continue to strongly believe that any map should only show the precise location of venues, marked with a dot. As soon as you start shading in countries, you open yourself up to controversy and edit warring. With that said, I don't think this world map has ever shown any useful value to the reader in the first place. If you want to show that Formula One is a global business, just say so in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Scjessey is speaking volumes of sense. Just use dots to represent circuits. Makes a load of sense - especially seeing as there are non-"national" GPs in the F1 championship. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that shading doesn't add anything worthwhile. I never understood how the afore mentioned RfC reached the conclusion that there wasn't a consensus to remove the shading. However, I don't support removing the map entirely. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here the map doesn't show that F1 is a global business. It highlights the lack of races in Africa, and the prevalence of races in Europe. SSSB (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, do we have a consensus to use a map like this one? Of course someone who can handle svgs needs to create one for the current season. But this shouldn't be a problem. Chaddy (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Within this thread, maybe (no opposition, yet). I would recommend a bold replacement, as there has never been a consensus in favour of colouring. If it is reverted, then we can move to a discussion dedicated solely to that issue (a new one, to avoid us getting distracted by how we colour, which isn't relevant to if we should colour). If we still don't have consensus, we go to RfC. SSSB (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this per WP:BRD. I would also add that you could have coloured dots for current calendar and black dots for all the others. The relevant data can be found in this article (which also has the problem map). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Okay! Now just someone needs to create such a map. Chaddy (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just use the same system of dots as previously, with larger, solid dots for current races, and smaller, outlined dots for previous ones. It'd be good to add some colour somehow though, as they become very black and white without the coloured countries. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 20:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're aware of this discussion, but what's your take on it? Would you be interested in adopting a pratice where countries aren't coloured in in your 2022 and future Formula 1 all over the world maps? Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 20:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just use coloured dots, then. SSSB (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. Not everyone can fully distinguish all colors. We should never use color alone to convey information.Tvx1 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ...which is why I'm suggesting the same system of dots as previously, with larger, solid dots for current races and smaller, outlined dots for previous ones. However, adding some colour helps making it less bland. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 22:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting to use colours to convey information. I was just saying that rather than using big black circles, and small white ones (like we do now), use big blue dots (or whatever colour), and small white ones. That way the colours don't actually convey anything, but just make it prettier. SSSB (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But suggesting to use blue and white to distinguish them, you are suggesting to rely on colors. Use different shapes, like dots and squares, instead as everyone can distinguish that.Tvx1 23:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this any different to using black and white like we do now? Or shading countries in green? Colour blind people can still distinguich shades, even if they can't tell what the colour is. The key doesn't need to mention colours, we simply say, "big dots represent current locations, small dots represent previous locations". SSSB (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pinging me. I personally think that coloring or highlighting the countries is relevant to the subject. Countries that host(ed) Grands Prix are not insignificant, as demonstrated by this being specifically mentioned in a bunch of Wiki articles on F1, as well as a multitude of external sources. Also, majority (if not all) of the races are actually organized by FIA member clubs which specifically represent the countries - so it's not only "promoter and/or circuit" that is typically involved (as was incorrectly mentioned earlier by ). However, if for some reason there is a strong desire by some editors to have a "blanked out" map with de-emphasized countries while at the same time specifically emphasizing the venues only, I can help with this by creating such a version of the map like I've done in the past. cherkash (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not "incorrect" for me to say that most races are arranged through promoters and/or circuits. In fact, almost all of them are done in that way. It is true that many countries (or regions of countries) may provide backing, tax incentives or subsidies to these, but most actual races are run through a promoter of some kind, even if that promoter is just a "front" for a nation or region. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 * It was not incorrect - but you are conflating commercial arrangements with the sporting arrangements. E.g. FIA is involved in the latter, while FOM (or whatever they happen to be called at any given moment in time) in the former. cherkash (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just naivety. You cannot separate commercial and sporting arrangements in F1. Without a commercial promoter, most races simply wouldn't happen. In fact, the promoter usually has to pony up a fuckton of cash just to get F1 to even consider racing somewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One party being dependent on the other doesn't mean they can't be separated. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * would you mind creating such a map. That way we can at least be on the same page about what such a map would like. Rather than have people give opinions based on imagination. Then we can make a more informed decision. SSSB (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you go. cherkash (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to be frank I think with just the dots remaining the map loses 90% of its usefulness.Tvx1 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree. cherkash (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the map is just as useful as before. For me, this proves that highlighting nations doesn't actually add anything other than colour. The only thing I would say is that the dots for previous races need to be made clearer (maybe make them black, and distinguish old and current races by the size of the dot alone. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's gonna make it useless arond Europe. The dots will just melt into each other. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that's already a problem, but I see your point... we could have a global map, and a Europe map (like Formula E article do). I don't know I'm just brain-storming. Expanding on my previous point, the point of the map isn't to highlight the nations which host F1 races, it is to highlight where in the world races are. So I've always thought the colours were actually a distraction to the map's purpose. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that the proposed map is as useful as the existing one. I don't understand how you can even claim that. And who says that isn't the point of the map to higlight the hosting nations? You? When was there ever any discussion on that subject?? The first time a map appeared in a season article was back in 2012. And that one only highlighted the nations and didn't mark the circuits at all. So I'd say highlighting the nations was always the main intention. Showing where the circuits were located within the nations was an intention which was added much later. I really find it remarkable that you are so lecturing about maps which originated five years before you joined Wikipedia. All this is just a knee-jerk reaction to one editor who simply refuses to accept that we never used international law as a basis to generate these maps.Tvx1 14:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in that I find the colours useful to a certain extent, and think there's better solutions if the border issue is even an issue. Let's stop making time on Wikipedia an argument, though. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Time on Wikipedia isn't the argument. It isn't about experience. The argument is a blunt claim on the purpose of something when the person in question wasn't involved with creating and purposing the subject in any way.Tvx1 19:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The map has never been "useful" in any of its forms. As I've said before, it would be better to get rid of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s only personal opinion. Many readers and editors don’t support that view.Tvx1 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can also argue it is original research, since it has been created from scratch by synthesis of available data. My point is that for such a synthesis to be included, it needs to prove its value to the reader rather than the other way around. The lame argument that it is needed to "show the global nature" of the sport is easily answered by the existence of "which take place worldwide" in the article's introduction, so it is really not needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is improper use of WP:SYNTHESIS. What's the conclusion in the map that is not explicitly stated by any source? The official schedule explicitly states the countries along with the tracks, and combining this year's schedule with previous seasons does not imply any such conclusion.
 * Even if WP:SYNTHESIS was relevant, it needing to "prove it's value" is not a relevant factor to whether it should be included or not. It's a visualization of where F1 rounds have been held, both in terms of tracks and countries, both of which are supported by the sources. Such visualizations are neither uncommon nor problematic. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Combining this year's schedule with previous seasons" to create a thing is TEXTBOOK synthesis. You specifically need a source that explicitly states what it is that you are trying to convey with this map, and because no such source exists we are currently creating one by violating this part of WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Using or combining more than one source is not the issue, it's what Wikipedia is built on. Doing so to reach a conclusion not supported by any source is an issue however, and that is what is adressed by WP:SYNTHESIS. Again I'll ask you, what is the conclusion this synthesis creates that is not explicitly stated by any source? Because as far as I can tell, we're trying to convey 1) what rounds are on this year's calendar, and 2) what rounds have been on previous years' calendars. The sources support both of those things, and I don't see how the map creates a separate conclusion from this that's not supported by the sources. The map is quite literally a visualization of List of Formula One Grands Prix.
 * I'll add that such maps are far from uncommon on Wikipedia. They're being used in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 infobox, in the list of World Rally Championship rallies, and in the list of Super Bowl host cities. And with good reason, considering one of the good article criteria and featured list criteria is that the article/list is illustrated with media files, which includes visual maps. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 17:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale for including the map in the first place was that it showed that Formula 1 was a global sport, but that is better explained in the text already. The map is, therefore, superfluous at best and (because of the apparent conflicts it is creating above) an edit war magnet at worst. Moreover, an apparently broken visual solution that has clear accessibility issues is best excluded until such time as a solution can present itself. Remember this map was never intended to be in this article in the first place, and trying to repurpose it has created all kinds of trouble. This is the last I will be saying on the matter, since I don't want to wander into the realm of disruption to make a point, but it would be wrong not to stridently state my objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My rationale is that it illustrates the content of the relevant articles/article sections/lists where it is included, just like any other image, map, diagram or other other visual aid. It doesn't matter if you think the text "explains it better", you could have that opinion about practically any media file. A picture is worth a thousand words though, which is why maps are used alongside text in countless Wikipedia articles without any problems, and why visualizations are a criteria for "Good" articles and "Featured" articles and lists. This all really is a complete sidetrack from the real discussion, the only reason this map has caused a conversation is because one user wrongly decided to remove it based on how it rendered the border between Ukraine and Russia. Removing the colouring of countries, or removing the map completely, are drastic and completely unecessary solutions. There is a discussion to be had on how such borders should be rendered, but besides that, just the use of such a map is recommended, extremely common, and a non-issue. Ved havet 🌊   ( talk ) 20:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, I’m sorry but you’re being ridiculous here. Firstly, there is no case of synthesis here whatsoever here. There is no connclusion being drawn from statements from different sources. There only is a map with very easily verifiable information of which countries host and hosted formula 1 races. I could understand the usefulness on season articles being questioned, but then again the 2015 article became a featured article with the full map, but in this article in a section that details the history of the races being hosted throughout out the world a visual representation of where in the world the host countries and their F1 tracks are situated is very worthwile. Secondly, your claim that the rationale for including the map was to demonstrate “the global nature” is just as sweeping and false as SSSB’s claim that showing which countries host(ed) races was never the intention. As far as can derive from when this map was created and when they were first added, the intention always was to visually show where in the world the host countries are situated and where in these countries the host circuits are located.Tvx1 00:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I said I wouldn't be saying more on this matter, but I feel compelled to point out that this violates WP:NPA. Please try to be more civil and assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you guys say the Alfa Romeo 158/159 is an F1 car or simply a pre-war Voiturette converted to be an F1 car?
It started production in 1938 but in 1950 was entered into the F1 World Championship where it won every race (except the obvious Indy 500) and continued to win races until 1953.

Its very strange. GarethBaloney (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"2050 Formula One World Championship" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2050_Formula_One_World_Championship&redirect=no 2050 Formula One World Championship] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Street circuits?
It is a stretch to call Jeddah Corniche and Miami a street circuit. Jeddah: Most features are permanent (e.g., pit buildings) and if you look at Google Maps, there is not a single car on those “streets” but there are elsewhere in Jeddah. The streets are clearly not open to regular traffic and it would not make sense if they were as the circuit is built between two public roads. Miami: this is 90% a parking lot of a football stadium. It includes a section of a public road, but again, it is a stretch to call it a street circuit. I propose removing non street circuits. Keeping Wikipedia pages honest by removing inaccurate and obviously, self-promotional text. (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 * This comment is WP:Original research. I know (because I researched when I was repling to your comment at Talk:Jeddah Corniche Circuit) that many sources call that venue a street circuit, so we must too. As for Miami, the statement in unsourced either way (no source calls it a street circuit, but no source calls identifies it as purpose built), so I have requested a citation for it. SSSB (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive reply regarding Miami. On Jeddah, I guess most media are gaslit and want to believe it. Globalwikireader (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Formula One


text:
Albert Park Circuit

The Albert Park Circuit is a motorsport street circuit around Albert Park Lake in the suburb of Albert Park in Melbourne. It is used annually as a circuit for the Formula One Australian Grand Prix, the supporting Supercars Championship Melbourne SuperSprint and other associated support races. The circuit has an FIA Grade 1 licence.

Although the entire track consists of normally public roads, each sector includes medium to high-speed characteristics more commonly associated with dedicated racetracks facilitated by grass and gravel run-off safety zones that are reconstructed annually. However, the circuit also has characteristics of a street circuit's enclosed nature due to concrete barriers annually built along the Lakeside Drive curve, in particular, where run-off is not available due to the proximity of the lake shore.

Design
The circuit uses everyday sections of road that circle Albert Park Lake, a small man-altered lake (originally a large lagoon formed as part of the ancient Yarra River course) just south of the Central Business District of Melbourne. The road sections that are used were rebuilt before the inaugural event in 1996 to ensure consistency and smoothness. As a result, compared to other circuits that are held on public roads, the Albert Park track has quite a smooth surface. Before 2007 there existed only a few other places on the Formula 1 calendar with a body of water close to the track. Many of the new tracks, such as Valencia, Singapore and Abu Dhabi are close to a body of water.

The course is considered to be quite fast and relatively easy to drive, drivers having commented that the consistent placement of corners allows them to easily learn the circuit and achieve competitive times. However, the flat terrain around the lake, coupled with a track design that features few true straights, means that the track is not conducive to overtaking or easy spectating unless in possession of a grandstand seat.

Each year, most of the trackside fencing, pedestrian overpasses, grandstands, and other motorsport infrastructure are erected approximately two months before the Grand Prix weekend and removed within 6 weeks after the event. The land around the circuit (including a large aquatic centre, a golf course, a Lakeside Stadium, some restaurants, and rowing boathouses) has restricted access during that entire period. Dissent is still prevalent among nearby residents and users of those other facilities, and some still maintain a silent protest against the event. Nevertheless, the event is reasonably popular in Melbourne and Australia (with a large European population and a general interest in motorsport). Middle Park, the home of South Melbourne FC was demolished in 1994 due to expansion at Albert Park.

The Grand Prix regularly draws crowds of over 270,000 spectators, with the 2024 drawing a record crowd of 452,055, including 132,106 on the main raceday. There has never been a night race at Albert Park, although the 2009 and 2010 events both started at 5:00 p.m. local time. The current contract for the Grand Prix at the circuit concludes in 2035.

Following the postponement of the Australian Grand Prix in 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the track underwent layout changes, the most notable part was the modification of the turn 9–10 complex from a heavy right-left corner to a fast-sweeping right-left corner into turns 11 and 12. Further modifications included the widening of the pit lane by 2 m and the reprofiling of turn 13. Also, some corners were widened such as turn 1, turn 3, turn 6, turn 7, and turn 15. The 2022 pole position lap time was 2.6 seconds quicker than in 2019.

Everyday access
During the nine months of the year when the track is not required for Grand Prix preparation or the race weekend, most of the track can be driven by ordinary street-registered vehicles either clockwise or anti-clockwise.

Only the sections between turns 3, 4, and 5, then 5 and 6, differ significantly from the race track configuration. Turn 4 is replaced by a car park access road running directly from turns 3 to 5. Between turns 5 and 6, the road is blocked. It is possible to drive from turn 5 on to Albert Road and back on to the track at turn 7 though three sets of lights control the flow of this option. The only set of lights on the actual track is halfway between turns 12 and 13, where drivers using Queens Road are catered for. The chicanes at turns 11 and 12 are considerably more open than that used in the Grand Prix, using the escape roads. Turn 9 is also a car park and traffic is directed down another escape road.

The speed limit is generally 40 km/h, while some short sections have a speed limit of 50 km/h, which is still slower than an F1 car under pit lane speed restrictions. The back of the track, turns 7 to 13 inclusive, is known as Lakeside Drive. Double lines separate the two-way traffic along most of Lakeside Drive with short road islands approximately every 50 m which means overtaking is illegal here. Black Swans live and breed in Albert Park, and frequently cross the road causing traffic delays, sometimes with up to five cygnets (young swans).

Approximately 80% of the track edge is lined with short parkland-style chain-linked fencing leaving normal drivers less room for error than F1 drivers have during race weekend. There is however substantial shoulder room between the outside of each lane and the fencing, which is used as parking along Aughtie Drive during the other nine months.

Albert Park Circuit (1953–1958)
Prior to World War II, attempts were made to use Albert Park for motor racing. The first was in 1934 but failed due to opposition, and a second attempt for a motorcycle race in 1937 similarly failed. Finally in 1953 the Light Car Club of Australia were able to secure use of the circuit for that year's Australian Grand Prix.

Albert Park is the only venue to host the Australian Grand Prix in both World Championship and non-World Championship formats with an earlier configuration of the current circuit used for the race on two occasions during the 1950s. During this time racing was conducted in an anti-clockwise direction as opposed to the current circuit which runs clockwise.

Known as the Albert Park Circuit, the original 3.125 mi course hosted a total of six race meetings:
 * 21 November 1953 – featuring the 1953 Australian Grand Prix, won by Doug Whiteford (Talbot-Lago T26C)
 * 26 and 27 March 1955 – the first Moomba meeting, which involved an alliance with the Moomba festival and The Argus newspaper, featuring the Moomba TT, won by Doug Whiteford (Triumph TR2) and the Argus Trophy, also won by Doug Whiteford (Talbot-Lago)
 * 11 March and 18 March 1956 – the second Moomba meeting, featuring the 1956 Moomba TT won by Tony Gaze (HWM Jaguar), and on the second weekend the 1956 Argus Trophy, won by Reg Hunt (Maserati 250F)
 * 25 November & 2 December 1956 – featuring the 1956 Australian Tourist Trophy, won by Stirling Moss (Maserati 300S), and on the second weekend the 1956 Australian Grand Prix, also won by Stirling Moss (Maserati 250F)
 * 17 and 24 March 1957 – the third Moomba meeting – featuring the Victorian Tourist Trophy won by Doug Whiteford (Maserati 300S), and the Victorian Trophy, won by Lex Davison (Ferrari 500). The Victorian Trophy was retrospectively designated as the second round of the 1957 Australian Drivers' Championship
 * 23 and 30 November 1958 – featuring the 1958 Victorian Tourist Trophy, won by Doug Whiteford (Maserati 300S), and, on the second weekend, the 1958 Melbourne Grand Prix, (a round of the 1958 Australian Drivers' Championship), won by Stirling Moss (Cooper Coventry Climax)

The November 1958 meeting was the last on the original incarnation of the circuit, as it closed shortly after.

Events

 * Current:
 * March: Formula One Australian Grand Prix, FIA Formula 2 Championship, FIA Formula 3 Championship, Supercars Championship Melbourne SuperSprint, Porsche Carrera Cup Australia Championship

 * Former:
 * Aussie Racing Cars (2007–2009)
 * Australian Drivers' Championship (1957–1958, 1996)
 * Australian Mini Challenge (2009–2010)
 * Australian Formula 4 Championship (2019)
 * Australian Formula Ford Championship (2009–2010, 2012)
 * Australian GT Championship (2008–2010, 2016–2019)
 * Ferrari Challenge Asia-Pacific (2018–2019)
 * Porsche Supercup (1999)
 * S5000 Australian Drivers' Championship (2022)
 * Supercars Championship Supercars Challenge (1996–2006, 2008–2017)
 * V8 Ute Racing Series (2005–2007)

Race lap records
As of March 2024, the fastest official race lap records at the Albert Park Circuit are listed as:

title: Albert Park Circuit