text:
User:Kariba~enwikiversity

A Reflective Practical Analysis

Political gaming and simulations encompasses role plays, board and online games which aim to replicate politically motivated events in history such as ‘Liberté’ and ‘1776’, social/ economic systems such as ‘Monopoly’ and wars like ‘Vietnam 1995’. Political simulations combine pragmatism in the form of education for the players and training for government personnel with entertainment in the form of interaction; thus giving participants the opportunity to simulate as much of the relevant political phenomena as possible. In this reflective analysis, I plan to evaluate ‘Monopoly’, ‘Liberté’, ‘Vietnam 1995’ and ‘1776’whilst simultaneously addressing questions relating to each game’s/simulation’s mechanics, techniques, political lessons, shortcomings as well ability to combine abstraction and realism.

‘Monopoly’; The purpose of Monopoly is to acquire the most wealth whilst buying, renting and selling property. The dice-rolling mechanics adhere to the facet of life which is dictated by fate whereas the universalised board encourages a sense of national identity. The provision of play money alongside the ability for players to conspire but inability to borrow from or lend to each other further advances the notion that the advantage of one leads to the detriment of another. Monopoly’s original predecessor; “The Landlord’s Game” was based on Henry George’s single tax theory which argues that imposing single tax on land would lead to its ownership as common property, rather than as individual property; thus redistributing wealth and alleviating poverty (Gild, 2007, 9). Elizabeth Phillips (the game’s inventor) envisioned players learning about the injustices of the tax system which via rents led to the enrichment of property owners at the expense of impoverished tenants. However, due to the games’ complexity its demographic was confined to intellectuals and university students. The rules of Monopoly coincide with the simplicity and straight-forward nature of the board, each space is labelled clearly with unambiguous descriptions. The role of the ‘banker’ allows for players who lack confidence in or knowledge of basic arithmetic to engage in the game more effectively. The defining characteristic that distinguished Monopoly from “The Landlord’s Game” lies in its capability to appeal to the competitive nature a myriad of humans adopt in situations where the ‘losers’ outweigh the ‘winners’. Its combination of realism and escapism not only perpetuates the significance and ruthlessness of capitalism and rewards the conscientious and quick-thinking individuals but allows players to enjoy themselves in a sociable manner. In the midst of the bleak economic climate where money is scarce, Monopoly gives players the equal footing financially they would not otherwise experience in their real financial lives. Every player has the opportunity to be the successful land-owner regardless of gender, experience or race; a stance that has yet to be adopted in capitalist societies. Throughout the game, capital is synonymous with power, the more capital you have to negotiate with the more power you have to exercise. The banker, the bank and the individual with the most properties in a coloured group are the most influential players in Monopoly because they are more likely to be in control of the most capital during the game. The aesthetics of the game board show evidence of abstraction; the colour of the lettering for the word ‘GO’ is red. In western societies, red representing ‘STOP’ and green representing ‘GO’ are not only universal but as a result of globalisation globally recognisable symbols. On the other hand, realism is present as consumerism is highlighted when players who obtain one property begin on an insatiable quest to attain more in order to gain affluence and thus win the game. Individualism is a feature of Monopoly (though paradoxical) used to emphasize the objective of the game and depict reality in the business sector. The game fails to accurately simulate the decision-making processes faced by protagonists of capitalism as the factors involved in making decisions of a capitalist nature such as the state of the economic climate are vast and complex. As a result risks that have not been extensively evaluated are more likely to be taken while playing the game. Two political lessons people can be learnt from Monopoly; regardless of the fact that land is a natural resource, once monopolised it can be used to the advantage of the capitalist to exploit people to the point of impoverishment. Secondly, one person’s gain is another person’s loss. Arguably, enforcing a time limit could avoid a situation in which the last two participants play endlessly before a winner is recognized.

‘Liberté’

Martin Wallace’s Liberté is a game which not only allows players to replicate revolutionary France from the meeting of the Estates General in 1789 to the Directory and General Napoleon Bonaparte’s coup d’état in 1799. Participants also have the opportunity to participate in ‘elections’ without having to align with any particular faction. The aim of the game is to accumulate victory points by controlling the relevant provinces, maintain the highest number of factions in those provinces and advance the appropriate cards to weaken rivals and thus gain an advantage. The map of France, centred on the board is divided into twenty-seven provinces separated by six regions; distinguished by various colours. The colourful board not only represents the way the world viewed France during the revolution; captivating, but as the game progresses, the board along with the corresponding counters (belonging to the players) and the red, white and blue faction blocks lend a ‘hand’ to the chaos that characterised the French revolution. The personality cards cater to the games historical allegiance as it features the revolution’s real-life actors such as Morat, Darton and Desmoulins. All actors are linked to the factions they represented at the time and minor actors are worth fewer faction blocks. Liberté encourages interaction amongst its players more so if they have taken advantage of all the game’s components. Arguably, the intricacies of the game as well as the condense rule pamphlet are a deterrent to those you value simplicity and immediateness in their game play. Liberté becomes more enjoyable after the first two turns as the participants who contain the relevant cards and place the faction blocks on the area of the board reserved for battles can engage in battle and ‘fight’ for victory points. One of the defining features Liberté contains is the three victory conditions that can result in the ending of a game. The first being the player who amasses the most victory points at the end of four turns. If the Radicals (represented by the red faction blocks) win a landslide in the election by gaining seventeen points or as a result of the player that controls the most red faction blocks. Lastly, the Royalists can cause an immediate counter revolution, win (including the player with the most support for the Royalist) and end the game by controlling at least seven out of fifteen ‘CR’ labelled provinces; in the two latter conditions victory points are rendered meaningless. Realism lies at the heart of Liberté whether it’s the fact that no political actor’s fate is secure or strategic planning is crucial to winning the game. On the other hand, the occurrence of the cards that represent ‘bread shortages’ can be controlled by the players that possess them; this is only inaccurate in simulating the decision making processes faced by the revolution’s real-life political actors (as bread shortages were one of the revolution’s contributing factors )but brings an element of abstraction to the game. Liberté teaches participants about the importance of attention, observation and strategy in the midst of a revolution. Reducing the amount of rules as well as levelling the amount of corresponding illustration used may broaden the demographic to account for people who are consider themselves to be unprofessional gamers.

‘Vietnam 1955’ Vietnam 1955 was a multi-power political simulation in which participants were divided into groups of two to four players based on the countries they were representing. Each participant was provided with an introductory booklet (which they had to immediately discard) and each ‘nation’ was given a sheet explaining how victory points could be gained as well as lost. The Operation Pale ensured that the simulation paralleled 1950’s Vietnam; via intervallic narration Countries such as Russia, USA and French Indo-China ‘experienced’ political events like the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Suez Canal question, Operation Castor and the Geneva Peace Conference(in the midst of deliberation, alliance-building and speeches). The aim of Vietnam 1955 was to acquire the most victory points for the country being represented. The way these points could be garnered varied in complexity from chairing the Geneva conference to merely attending. Verbal persuasion amongst the participants representing each county (both within and across ‘nations’) was paramount as each country shared similar goals; though the points associated with them varied. This coupled with fact that participants are oblivious to the victory conditions for other countries made the simulation exciting and unpredictable. The participants representing the Vietminh and French Indo-Chinese automatically gained an advantage through their power to give way victory points however, Vietnam 1955 favoured the umpire evidenced by their knowledge of the rules and ability to manipulate the direction of the simulation when necessary. Both conditions increase the likelihood of Vietnam 1955 adhering to the game’s historical ties without completely restricting a player’s decisions and actions. The political simulation took place in one classroom which better served the elements of the game that were abstract because ‘nations’ at times were huddled together and undistinguishable. Alliances were built as quickly as they were broken and decisions were often spontaneous and irrational; a consequence of the limited knowledge of the decision-makers. Realism was evident in the significance of the victory conditions with regards to the decision-making process of the countries though other factors such as the threat of a nuclear war were neglected. The closeness of French-Indo-China and Vietnam during the game was inaccurate as a result of the 1950 colonial war between Ho Chi Minh’s Vietminh guerrillas and the French Union’s expeditionary corps. Vietnam 1955 and the players representing Vietnam reminded other players of the importance in asserting political influence and building alliances with countries as early as possible. In order to make the simulation more realistic national identity would need to be enforced in the form of flags or badges. Negotiations between countries and intergovernmental alliances should be formed/ take place in separate rooms. Not only are players more likely to honour agreements but it adds another to the decision-making process and dimension to the game; secrecy.

‘1776’

1776 is comprised of six games in one which replicate the military strategies adopted by both the American and the British during the American Revolution. More specifically 1776 includes a basic game which familiarises the players with simulation gaming: an advanced game where scenarios are characterised by additional complexity; and a campaign game which covers the entirety of the war in four separate scenarios. The Campaign simulation is played with each turn lasting a ‘month’ beginning in January 1776 and ending in December 1780. 1776 is played on the standard Avalon Hill hex grid board which is divided into four regions; the Deep South, the Middle States, the South Central Region and New England all of which contain a combination of twenty-two strategic states. The aim of the British player is to control twenty strategic states for a complete turn including New York, Newport, Savannah, Charleston, Boston and Philadelphia. Whereas the aim of the American player is to either prevent the British player from achieving the minimum victory requirements (to control at least ten strategic towns by the end of 1776 and 1779) or avoid confrontation with the British.

1776 is time-consuming and this is evidenced its thirty-page rule book and the fact that one game can take between two to eight hours to complete. Only two players are required to play this game in which throughout, they view each other as the enemy. As a result, sociability diminishes as the game progresses. On the other hand, the design on the board is very original and the distances between significant provinces have been calculated carefully so that the speed in which players move reflect the outcome of the simulation. 1776’s realist facet can be seen in the initial numeric superiority of the British force in the war and the featuring of a tactical combat system used to replicate the individual battles of the campaign. Arguably, 1776’s abstraction lies in its heavy reliance on the role of military conflict in the American Revolution at the expense of other factors originally present. Decision-making processes cannot be accurately simulated because of the inability to deliberate amongst players on the ‘same team’ especially regarding issues ‘where human lives are at stake’. 1776 teaches its participants that military decisions should be based on gaining political control in regions in order to get the forces required to win the war. Increasing the amount of players required and reducing the amount of pieces would not only increase the likelihood of interaction but could direct the focus towards the politics involved in the American Revolution.

In conclusion, all the games analysed contain elements of abstraction and realism which satisfies the criteria for political simulations/games with regards to pragmatism and entertainment. Both ‘Liberté’ and ‘1776’ are based on revolutions in which they have honoured in terms of each game’s mechanics, techniques and structure. Moreover, aesthetic appeal characterizes ‘Liberté’ and ‘Monopoly’ regardless of their pessimistic political lessons; with ‘Monopoly’s’ expressing capitalism produces more poorer individuals than rich individuals. ‘Vietnam 1995’ maintains its historical ties using two techniques; the first is by using an umpire who can manipulate the direction of the game. The second lies in the simulation’s ability to emphasize on the importance of gaining victory points and to encourage participants to satisfy their competitive nature even though they are oblivious to its rules.

Bibliography

Gild, B., (2007) Henry George and the Single Tax (The Arden Georgist Gild, Arden, Delaware) http://www.boardgameinfo.com/review/15/15363-Libert%E9

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3312/1776

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/291651/1776-the-revolutionary-game-that-dared-to-be-diff

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/SPIR608_Political_Simulation_and_Gaming/2011/Week_3

http://valleygames.ca/?s=Liberte http://www.dantiques.com/abgd/aardmakehtml.mv?look4=1130.00000

title: User:Kariba~enwikiversity


text:
Talk:Complex socio-ecological systems/Social systems

Discussion on Social Systems - Postings

Main questions for discussion:

1) Is it possible to understand social systems using the traditional theory of resilience of SES as we have seen in past sessions of this seminar?

2) At which extent is possible that the ecological and material components of a system are resilient, while at the same time a cultural group within it is pushed over a threshold to a new state?

3) Cultural/social systems are in constant and rapid transformation, so what it means to be resilient in social terms?

4) Can we achieve an integrated analysis of social and ecological resilience using one frame of reference?

5) Should we privilege the environment over the current needs of humans or vice-versa? Which right should prevail (e. g. poverty)?

6) In what sense can social systems be viewed as self-organizing?

7) Can you give an example of a system in which an increased ecological resilience led to a decreased cultural resilience?

8) Are societies simple really simple in times of globalization and social change?

9) How do we govern the commons in complex urban societies? E. g. water

--

Armitage (2008):

Besides the political ecology, resilience/complex systems and the commons literatures, which other body of literature might help us think about the governance of natural resources?

How can "hybridized perspectives" help us deal with some of the issues that political ecologists identify as regards the management of natural resources?

What factors influence policy makers and scientists, which might make it hard for them to come up with "conceptually consistent frameworks" to assess common governance approaches?

Armitage (2008) points out the self-organization of social systems and of ecological systems. It is important to recognize that the resilience of social systems might not go hand-in-hand with the resilience of ecological systems. Vested interested in the maintenance of social systems might make these systems more resilient, but lead to the ruin of ecological systems (a regulation that fosters deforestation, for example).

Do social systems, such as institutions, self-organize?

When considering social systems, I think it is important to take into consideration the possibility of "flip backs" into periods of poor governance, as Armitage (2008) explains. The idea of flip back could also be applied to other social systems, such as knowledge and government. With this I mean to say that we should not assume that social systems are progressing (towards better stages).

I like how Armitage (2008) brings together these three literatures, especially the political ecology literature, to emphasize the normativeness of governance projects, and how in reality politics, power imbalances and inequalities play a very important role in determining whether governance schemes, such as collaborative adaptive management has chances to evolve.

The idea that governance is a project of government is interesting. It opens space to questioning to which point social systems are self-organizing, or whether we need proactive planning, policy-making and creation of governance schemes, without which systems would collapse.

flaleite 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Harrison: This is by far the best critique of resilience theory and it's application I've yet read. He calls into question the concept that all social systems are complex, and points out the lack of treatment of authoritative institutions and the overlapping spheres of complexity an individual may be a component of in social systems. I feel these points are best summed in his statement "If the model of complex systems that explains ecological systems does not fit social systems equally well, treating them as a single object of study loses significant information..." I would take it a step further, however. It's not simply that resilience theory, headed mainly be ecologists at this point, has attempted to inappropriately use resilience theory frameworks to explain all socio-ecological systems. In my view, it's mainly that the social sciences themselves have not reached a point in their models, theoretical and numerical, wherein they adequately capture the components of social systems. In my view, this is the fault of the many social science researchers who make the claim that social systems can not be quantified to any meaningful degree. By entirely rejecting the notion that it is possible, those social scientists have divided their specific fields into mutually-exclusive enterprises and cheapened the value of their scientific contributions. It has become a self-fulfilling statement: because scientists have not, we can not. Can their really be no governing rules as to how institutions change, as Harrison states as "At each level of complexity what can be done and what needs to be done to change institutions and behaviors will be unique to that degree of complexity."?

I read from Harrison's paper two main points: First, that humans act in such ways that they have inherited (learned) probabilities of behavior that is modified by a certain amount of pre-determination based on some sort of cultural norm or internal value. While it has been argued and proved that ecological systems lack pre-determination, I don't see why it is impossible to incorporate both concepts into models. That humans have this kind of behavior seems to be a hypothesis, one that desperately needs to be evaluated empirically. Certainly resilience scholars have stuck to economics (famously, Bob Costanza). As far as I am aware, it is the only social science that really has attempted to quantify decision making and social structure in any meaningful way. However, Harrison is obviously not familiar with much of the work emerging out of animal behavior studies about power, authority, and social organization in many monkey societies. The studies have shown that "While animals are homeostatic, humans are driven by desire to act strategically" to not be entirely true. Many of these primate societies exhibit behavior of cooperation, preference, power and authority structures, stress, prostitution... all behaviors once considered unique to humans. Further, not only is the behavior an emergent property that can be observed; the biological expressions of authority are observed in individual animals, with the same characteristic health issues observed in highly complex societies. Along those lines, I find it interesting that Harrison points out how many studies now agree that management for a single species doesn't (or rarely?) work, but the inherent irony that we are trying to manage ecosystems for the benefit or desires of a singly (human) species is overlooked.

The second key point I read is that, to date, application of resilience theory has treated social systems as if each component of the social system experiences only one feedback loop (say, economical). In reality, each component will be a part of multiple loops, and I sort of visualize it as a Venn diagram, where each circle represents one set of "hierarchies" (to use Harrison's language) that affects that component. I'm reminded of the book 'Myth and Reality in the African Rainforest' (John Oates), which outlines examples where conservation activities have failed repeatedly due to a one-dimensional treatment of the coupled social and ecological local issues.

On a final not of this paper, I think the statement "But whereas self-organization in ecological systems creates systems "far from equilibrium" that are not stable in the long-term..." is wrong. Self-organization is characterized by a set of positive feedbacks (destabilizing) that ultimately organizes because of larger negative feedbacks (stabilizing) that controls the destabilizing properties of the system, usually considered in terms of patch size or growth rates. The word equilibrium has differing definitions in various fields, so perhaps the author is using one I am completely unfamiliar with. Or, perhaps the author is confusing stable state with steady state? DWatts 11:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Crane's rather rambling paper can't seem to decide what it wants to be. On the one hand, Crane tries to make steps toward examining his model Malian system from a resilience perspective. However, his efforts appear best summarized by the following sentence from the paper: "A close analysis of resilience as it is experienced in cultural context is not necessarily universally useful." In other words Crane finds that he cannot use qualitative observations to construct a convincing model of socio-cultural resilience. That he cannot should come as no surprise: he correctly points out early in the paper that social-ecological systems are complex; yet, curiously, he goes on to attempt an analysis of such a system without using any sort of truly analytical technique. In this paper Crane merely makes some descriptions of the system he observes. This situation places him among the good company of scores of scientists before him, who have discovered that before one can model a system, one must describe it. But Crane's choice of descriptive techniques, careful though it must have been during his 17 months in Mali, does not progress beyond the level of unqualified generalizations casual anecdotes--the plural of which, unfortunately, is not "data" (to paraphrase Roger Brenner).

In order to create any sort of model of a complex system which is useful--by which I mean usable by other researchers, repeatable or testable or transferrable to other systems--one must begin by carefully choosing what to measure. Crane acknowledges the difficulty of making measurements of features of social systems that are difficult to quantify, but himself makes no attempt to progress beyond the kind of apologetic confusion that plagues research in the humanities and prevents the use of powerful tools such as hypothesis testing.

Resilience in a social-ecological context may be thought of as a rather fuzzy concept, but this should not be so. Recall that the concept was transferred from complex ecological systems, where much careful observation is required to render a system in terms of quantifiable terms. This approach has allowed the development of ecological resilience theory, which includes concepts of hysteresis, thresholds, and stable states which can even be measured in some cases. Use of these concepts in a social-ecological context implies at most that they could be similarly measured--or that, at the very minimum, they could be defined. Crane makes a convincing case that the system he discusses does not lend itself to easy quantification in terms of resilience, but he does not do a good job (in my opinion) of even making clear definitions of what various resilience concepts would look like in the context of his system.

One may argue that I am being unkind, and that concepts such as societal values cannot be easily quantified. While that may appear true, the bigger point is that variables exist which can be used to approximate values, and which can be quantified. (For example, economists can use money spent on an activity, and behavioral biologists can use time or energy expended on certain actions, as quantifiable descriptions that can be thought of as measuring the value placed on that activity or action by humans or even other species.) If one chooses to describe a system in ways which cannot be quantified, one must give up the hope of applying quantitative tools to model it.

In summary, Crane does identify a system which might make a good case study of a social-ecological system where thresholds and resilience may exist. However, he falls far short by failing to describe what these concepts would mean in terms of the theory, and also he fails to even suggest ways in which he or future researchers might examine the system from a resilience perspective in ways which would be useful toward advancing the field. 24.136.33.118AdamWatts --- I think Armitage's take on political ecology and resilience is fascinating and rather contrary to what most individuals in those respective fields of study would conclude. Indeed, the similarities remarked in Armitage's table pale in comparison to even a synoptic glance at the difference in approaches they take. For one, much of political ecology views the ecological system as tied to macro-institutional change (echoing Harrison), when in fact resilience looks at cross-scalar dynamics that might also position the individual in a privileged state, depending on the flux and fluidity of the environment. For another, the state change called for in much of political ecology focuses almost solely on collapse and very little on renewal (Crane can be looked at for the latter, though Adam has his points about that work too). The linkage with some of the other articles may be difficult, but I would really like to engage Danielle and others about this perspective that the social sciences have created artificially demarcated schools of related thought; that they are underdeveloped helots who at best hide behind the veil of infinite complexity, and who at worst don't have cool enough tools and toys to make their science compete with the big boys. This is the thinking that led to, in part, the Science Wars (where much of political ecology was in the front ranks), the ashes from which socio-ecological resilience arose. ~Sam

I think Adam missed a key part of Crane's paper. The sentence that resilience analysis "may not be universally useful" is from the discussion. However, in the prior section he does actually analyze the resilience of the Mali case, drawing conclusions, while contrasting emic and etic perspectives. "Marka system ... changes in labor, economies and land management ... has not crossed thresholds which are emically characterized..."

I think Harrison sets up straw men to conquer. One is that resilience scientists mainly use public choice theories where actors are always egoistic, rational, utility maximizers. Axelrod's introduction explicitly frames his work as a contrast to this approach, and so does Ostrom. It's a straw man.

Harrison's view that social systems have cultural complexity that makes them inexplainable by a systems approach reminds me of the idea that the vertebrate eye is so complex that it could never have evolved by natural selection. [This is a classic denial of evolution and has been soundly rebutted.] Axelrod's whole book demonstrates how complex behaviors can evolve from (1) simple rules, (2) variation and (3) selection. In fact, in the genetic algorithm, planning and forethought (of a sort) emerged by selection in something as simple as a string of 70 0s and 1s. So the "exceptionalist" idea that human systems are too complex to systematically study is just creationism.Rbusch 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikiversity:Wikiversity is not about winning

Wikiversity is not about winning. Disputes over content or behavior are meant to be resolved per consensus and not "won". All participants here for the betterment of humankind are at all times willing to yield to consensus. Ego does not matter to Wikiversity; egos and pride are not helpful to learning and teaching, and ego and pride need to yield to consensus if a conflict between them somehow occurs. Any participants who at any time feel they should win are incorrect; there is nothing to win. Wikiversity is not World of Universitycraft.

Those who think it's more important to win, rather than help building a learning community we can all be proud of, are in the wrong place. Those here to habitually win or feel the need to rule, or control, are here for the wrong reason.

If this is you, you need to lay aside the need or impulse to allow ego, pride, or winning to take precedence over collaborative construction of a learning community. Please. To quote a film, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Regardless of who the one is -- be it an editor, a body of editors, or a group at Wikiversity -- the only one who matters is named "Wikiversity".


text:
Wikiversity:An uncivil environment is a poor environment

 * For the actual policy and principle, see WV:CIVIL

An uncivil environment is a poor environment to work in. It is not conducive to a useful and positive outcome from an already difficult situation. If participants are not staying within the boundaries of civility then they should be warned accordingly, and if they persist, then blocks should be enforced.

If conversations devolve into uncivil rants at each other, how is that helping anyone? Yes, we all believe our side is the right answer and find it difficult to assume good faith of the other parties, but we must force ourselves to as much as possible, and to stay civil. Else we are just a bunch of arguing participants who are doing exactly nothing for improving the site.

Reminding fellow participants of our need for civility is a good thing as it reminds people to stay useful.

Why does an uncivil environment hurt productive editing?
So, why does an uncivil environment hurt productive editing?

Us vs. Them mentality
Let's say I accuse you of "edits bordering on vandalism" about your good faith efforts to improve a resource. This makes you angry, right? Enough of this sort of thing leads to an Us versus Them mentality, which can prevent any attempt at compromise.

Destruction of nuance
The truth of a situation is often a subtle, difficult to articulate thing. An uncivil environment tends to result in such loud shouting that it becomes impossible to be heard over said shouting, thus making subtle, nuanced positions almost impossible.

Bad feelings
If you're in a bad mood, you're more likely to make a mistake. Incivility encourages a bad mood, thus encouraging mistakes.

Erosion of critical thinking
Incivility makes it harder for people to think critically, that is, to evaluate conflicting claims solely on their merits. When a discussion deteriorates into an exchange of insults, hyperbole tends to displace facts. When people become emotional, they become more prone to fallacies which appeal to emotion. In most persistent disputes, each side may have some facts to support its position, but with anger comes a hardening of positions and a refusal to consider the other side's case. People may lose sight of the actual disagreement, and instead focus on trying to harm the opponent, creating a cycle of vendetta. Don't let Wikiversity sink into the online equivalent of the conflicts that wracked Belfast, Baghdad, and Beirut at their worst. Cultivate sangfroid instead.

Departure from rules
Wikiversity maintains remarkable coherence despite the vast diversity of its participants. Wikiversity is able to do this by defining a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines that help guide participants in what to do in most situations. When disagreements occur, the cause is either that one or more participants are not aware of the applicable rules; different participants interpret the same rule in different ways; or a new situation has come up and the rules do not cover it yet.

The best way to avoid or defuse conflict on Wikiversity is to know the rules as thoroughly as you can. Not just individual policies and guidelines in isolation, but also how they fit together, and the underlying reasons for them. Then in most cases, disputes are easy to resolve simply by pointing everyone to the governing rules. This helps to take the focus away from individuals and their emotions of pride and self-worth, and instead make it about reading and following instructions. As long as everyone on Wikiversity agrees to do the latter, there is usually not much to argue about. If a dispute should get out of hand, and custodians must intervene, they will generally favor the side which most closely follows the rules.

When a dispute arises and the rules don't cover it, or an existing rule appears to need updating, participants should work carefully to reach consensus. The resolution affects not only the current dispute, but any number of other participants may rely on the findings when similar situations come in the future. Resolving a conflict therefore adds value to the entire project. Many features of Wikiversity that we take for granted today stemmed from past disputes, some of them bitter. We are able to participate productively because we don't all have to keep fighting the same battles.

When two sides devolve into calling each other names, they are not getting closer to finding the consensus which could add another important piece to Wikiversity's structure of rules.


text:
Paideia High School/Paideia Unit Plan Template

<Paideia Unit Plan Wikiversity Template This template is for texts of all types and works of fine art. Various categories are suitable for one type of work but not another. Irrelevant categories must be deleted in the final unit plan. It may be necessary to adapt categories to suit works science, mathematics, or fine arts.

To use this template, first click "Edit." Copy and paste all of the text below form the editor into the editor of a Wikiversity page designed for a Paideia Unit Plan. Text between markers should be replaced or deleted. All other text, except irrelevant sections, should remain. -->  is a Paideia Unit Plan. These guidelines address teachers for the purpose of guiding instruction. See Paideia Learning Plan for the student's point of view.

Column One
Column One teaching and learning should make up about 10% to 15% of the total scheduled instructional time. It is didactic in nature and uses teacher lectures, text books or other didactic instructional materials, and questioning appropriate to this mode of education. Teaching in this mode encompasses of three facets: Exoridium, Interpretation, and Erudition.

Exordium
The Exordium is the teacher's didactic introduction to the work that is the subject of a Paideia Unit Plan. This introduction consists of both an oral and physical (or electronic) presentation of the work. For longer works, the teacher may limit the oral presentation to key parts of the work. The teacher should read texts live distinctly, accurately, and intelligently. Other works should be orally presented similarly as appropriate to the type of work. In addition, the teacher should provide high quality audio and video recordings of works if possible. Students should have a consumable print copy of the work both electronically and in hard-copy if possible.

Oral Presentation

 *
 *

Written Presentation

 *
 *
 *

Interpretation
Textual Interpretation refers to the teacher's didactic analysis of a written work in terms of the four major questions a demanding reader should ask of a text. Using the term work instead of book, these questions are: (1) What is the text about as a whole? (2) What is being said in detail, and how? (3) Is the text true, in whole or part? and (4) What of it? The Exordium begins to answer the first question because it introduces the whole text both orally and in writing (although the oral presentation may be limited in the case of longer works). It is in the Interpretation stage of Column One instruction that the teacher didactically begins to thoroughly unlock the second question. The third and fourth questions are relevant to Interpretation, but question two receives most of the teacher's attention. It is only when the student begins Column Two activities that a fuller grasp of questions three and four begins to mature in the student's mind. Consistent with the purpose of Column One instruction, the teacher is simply introducing elements of proper interpretation for the student to build on during Column Two and Column Three learning.

These questions can be appropriately modified for analysis of a work in science, mathematics, or the fine arts. Analysis of these types of works proceeds in a manner analagous to that of a text. Inasmuch as imaginative literature can be considered a work of fine art, the analogies drawn in Adler's and Van Doren's How to Read a Book can serve as a guide to other types of works too.

Interpretation of  or
In textual interpretation, the teacher didactically presents the author's key terms in the stage of Interpretation of Words and Terms. In addition, the teacher anticipates unfamiliar general vocabulary. These words and terms are given didactically, either orally or in writing, or both, but the task of interpreting is a Column Two skill of learning that the teacher must coach. Consequently, the purpose of this Column One stage is merely to point out key terms and potentially unfamiliar terms. The student must learn how to interpret. Again, this planning can be adapted to other kinds of works.

Interpretation of Key Terms
The key terms are those few words or phrases the author uses in unique, special, or important ways. . In the Column Two stage, students are coached both to find these key terms and to "unlock" them on their own. This skill is essential to analytical reading. In this Column One stage, however, the teacher points out a list of such terms. Students should understand that this listing is not necessarily exhaustive. In addition, the teacher provides students with a handful of these terms worked out in detail for consideration; it should consist of about three to five terms.
 *
 *
 *

General Vocabulary
The teacher may anticipate general unfamiliar vocabulary and point out the more difficult words either orally or in writing or both. However, defining words using context, a dictionary, or a knowlegable friend or adult (including the teacher) is a Column Two skill that must be coached. Teachers must help students build good habits of knowing the meanings of words. Dictionaries, in both electronic and book form must be available, and students must be taught how to use them. They must also be taught how to ask for definitions--a perfectly acceptible life skill commonly used by demanding readers!

 *
 *
 *

Note: If the teacher points out words in anticipation of their potential difficulty, this should be done in context by giving citations or electronically highlighting the words.

Interpretation of Sentences
One point of didactic interpretation at the level of interpreting sentences is to use grammar to get at the author's meaning. As with interpreting words and terms, this level of interpretation is also a Column Two skill that must be coached. Consequently, at the Column One didactic level, a teacher should choose a handful of the most difficult sentences in the text for demonstration. The teacher will always unlock the grammar of a few important and more difficult sentences for students independent of whether these sentences are key premeses to an argument. As appropriate to the text, a teacher should also consider demonstrating the grammar of sentences that work together as propositions in the author's most important arguments.

Another important point is to demonstrate the meter and prosody in both poetry and prose texts. This aim is in great danger of being completely overlooked or forgotten in a world where oral reading is not nearly as common as it once was. Nevertheless, great speechs often succeed in part because the author understands prosody. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and King's I Have a Dream serve as striking examples. The teacher should select sentences or versus to demonstrate both meter and rhythm.

 * :
 * <Second Sentence>: <etc.>
 * <Third Sentence>: <explanation of meter and rhythm, consideration of overall prosody>
 * <Fourth Sentence>: <etc.>

Interpretation of Passages
At the level of passages, the full trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) come into play. First, a teacher should choose one or two of the author's most important arguments for a demonstration of how to use logic as a key to interpreting a text. Next, the teacher should select several passages to demonstrate how they conform (or not) to rhetorical, poetical, and sylistic rules. These rules, of course, must be didactically taught as prerequisites to interpretation of texts.

 * <Argument>: <demonstration of both the grammar of the sentences comprising premeses and of the concluding proposition along with the logic of the argument followed by an explanation of how the arguments help to unravel the author's meaning>
 * <Passage Illustrating Rhetorical Rules>: <demonstration of the rhetorical rules and their value in the success of the author's purpose>
 * <Passage Illustrating Poetical Rules>: <demonstration of the poetical rules and their value in the success of the author's purpose>
 * <Passage Illustration Stylistic Rules>: <demonstration of the stylistic rules and their value in the success of the author's purpose>

Erudition
Erudition refers to all manner of background information assumed by or necessary to understanding or fully appreciating the text.

<Note that these categories are presented alphabetically for ease of organization>

Anthropological References

 * <information relevant to anthropological issues and discoveries--include citations--delete if not used>

Antiquarian References

 * <information about references to things no longer commonly understood because of their situation in ages past--include citations--delete if not used>

Archaeological References

 * <information about details related to archaeological discoveries--include citations--delete if not used>

Biographical References

 * <information about the author--always include>
 * <information about other textual references to important people--include citations--delete if not used>

Cultural References

 * <information and links to cultural references--include citations--delete if not used>

Ethical References

 * <information and links to ethical references--include citations--delete if not used>

Geographical References

 * <links to relevant maps--delete if not used>
 * <information relevant to geographical references--include citations--delete if not used>

Historical References

 * <information and links to historical references--include citations--delete if not used>

Mathematical References

 * <information and links to mathematical references--include citations--delete if not used>

Political References

 * <information and links to political references--include citations--delete if not used>

Religious References

 * <information and links to religious references--include citations--delete if not used>

Scientific References

 * <information and links to scientific references--include citations--delete if not used>

Column Two
Column Two teaching consists of coaching. This mode of instruction aims at helping students to form habitual skills in the language, scientific, and fine arts. Thus, a teacher must correct students as they practice listening, speaking, reading, writing, observing with the senses unaided, observing with the aid of scientific apparatus, measuring, estimating, calculating, and exercising dexterity in the musical and visual arts. Each of these arts in turn rely upon the aquisition of fine and gross motor, imagination, and memory skills. These rules for developing Paideia Unit Plans address teachers. For their counterpart written for students, see Paideia Learning Plan.

Column Two learning comprises 65% to 75% of scheduled learning time. It's chief charactaristic is student activity. Students must be practicing some skill or skills while the teacher corrects him or her. While athletic coaching is an obvious example of this type of instruction, debate coaching, directing a drama, art instruction, and piano lessons also represent coaching. In order to coach well, a teacher must have a repertoire of activities carefully designed to exercised desired skills. Additionally, the teacher must have a clear idea of how to correct the skills as students practice them to ensure their habitual formation.

Mnuemonic Skills
<consider this category for every unit>

Listening Skills

 * <links to additional quality recordings--include citations--delete if not used>
 * <information relevant to listening for grammatical, logical, rhetorical, poetical, and stylistic elements of the work--include citations--delete if not used>

Speaking Skills

 * <imitation of quality oral readings--should be a part of every unit>
 * <recitations from memory--should be some part of every unit>
 * <oral presentations of written work--should be a part of most units>
 * <class discussions--should be a part of every unit>
 * <recitation of the rules of reading from Adler's and Van Doren's How to Read a Book or similar rules>

Reading Skills

 * <read hard-copy with a pencil in hand--always!>
 * <marking up a text both with a pencil and electronically>
 * <inspectional reading notes as taught in Adler's and Van Doren's How to Read a Book>
 * <analytical reading notes as taught in the same work>

Writing Skills

 * <Choose phrases from text and express them in different ways>
 * <Reconstruct a previously disarranged passage from the text>
 * <Compose verses or lines in imitation of the author>
 * <Change a passage or poem of one kind into another kind>
 * <Imitate a passage>
 * <Write a composition imitating the author>
 * <Translate sentences or passages into Latin or another language>

Seminar Question Writing Guidelines
The following table serves to guide teachers in understanding the types of questions that guide good seminars and how to write them. Good seminars follow the general structure given by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren in their classic How to Read a Book published by Simon & Schuster in 1972. Column one gives the four main questions that a demanding reader should ask of any book. These questions guide the types of questions and the purpose of each type used in good seminars. The last column serves to illustrate questions that might be asked of The Declaration of Independence, The Gettysburg Address, or Hamlet. This table could be easily adapted for any work of fine art like a painting or a musical score.

Specific Seminars
<Include written plans of actual seminars that have been conducted here.>


text:
User:Eml5526.s11.team3.hylon/Homework 3

=Problem3.3 Find global stiffness matrix, nodal displacements, reactions and stresses of bar element=

Problem Statement
Consider the truss structure given below. Nodes A and B are fixed. A force equal to 10N acts in the positive x-direction at node C. Coordinates of joints are given in meters. Young's modulus is $$E = 10^{11}$$ Pa and the cross-sectional area for all bars are $$ A = 2*10^{-2} m^{2}$$.

a. Number the elements and nodes

b. Assemble the global stiffness and force matrix

c. Partition the system and solve for nodal displacements

d. Computer the stresses and reactions

Solution
a.

The elements and nodes numbers are displayed in the figure above, with red numbers represent nodes and blue numbers stand for elements.

b.

We have already subdivided the structure into elements, and numbered the nodes and elements. For constructing the global stiffness matrix and force matrix, we take following 2 steps. Step 1, deal with the formulation of each element.

Element 1:

Element 1 numbered with global nodes 1 and 3. It’s positioned at an angle $${{\phi }^{(1)}}={{90}^{\circ }}$$ with respect to the positive horizontal x-axis. Other relations are as follow:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\cos ({{90}^{\circ }})=0,\sin ({{90}^{\circ }})=1,{{l}^{(1)}}=1m,{{k}^{(1)}}=\frac{AE}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}_ – ^ – N/m

$$ Hence we can obtain the local stiffness matrix for element 1:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(1)}}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   -1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} \right). $$
 * }.

Element 2:

Element 2 numbered with global nodes 2 and 4. It’s also positioned at an angle $${{\phi }^{(2)}}={{90}^{\circ }}$$ with respect to the positive horizontal x-axis. Other relations are as follow:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\cos ({{90}^{\circ }})=0,\sin ({{90}^{\circ }})=1,{{l}^{(2)}}=1m,{{k}^{(2)}}=\frac{AE}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}_ – ^ – N/m

$$ Hence we can obtain the local stiffness matrix for element 2:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(2)}}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   -1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$
 * }.

Element 3:

Element 3 numbered with global nodes 2 and 3. It’s positioned at an angle $${{\phi }^{(3)}}={{135}^{\circ }}$$ with respect to the positive horizontal x-axis. Other relations are as follow:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\cos ({{135}^{\circ }})=-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},\sin ({{90}^{\circ }})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},{{l}^{(3)}}=\sqrt{2}m,{{k}^{(3)}}=\frac{AE}=\sqrt{2}\cdot {{10}^{9}}_ – ^ – N/m

$$ Hence we can obtain the local stiffness matrix for element 3:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(3)}}=\sqrt{2}\cdot {{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2}  \\   -\frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -\frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   -\frac{1}{2}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -\frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   -\frac{1}{2}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -\frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2}  \\   -\frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -\frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$
 * }.

Element 4:

Element 4 numbered with global nodes 3 and 4. It’s also positioned at an angle $${{\phi }^{(4)}}={{0}^{\circ }}$$ with respect to the positive horizontal x-axis. Other relations are as follow:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\cos ({{0}^{\circ }})=1,\sin ({{0}^{\circ }})=0,{{l}^{(4)}}=1m,{{k}^{(4)}}=\frac{AE}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}_ – ^ – N/m

$$ Hence we can obtain the local stiffness matrix for element 4:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(4)}}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   1  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   -1  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$
 * }.

Step 2, assemble the global matrix. Direct assemble:

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

K=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   0 & 1  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   0  \\   -1  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}  \\   -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   1+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}  \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} \\ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \begin{matrix} 0 & -1 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & 1+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ \end{matrix} \\ \begin{matrix} -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ 1+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} -1 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} \\ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} 0 \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 0 & -1 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \begin{matrix} -1 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} 0 \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} \right) $$

 * }.

c.

Hence we have the global system as:

The global system is partitioned after four rows and four columns:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{d}_{E}}=\left( \begin{matrix}  0  \\   0  \\   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right), {{d}_{F}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   {{u}_{3x}}  \\   {{u}_{3y}}  \\   {{u}_{4x}}  \\   {{u}_{4y}}  \\ \end{matrix} \right), {{f}_{F}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\   10  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right), {{K}_{F}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   1+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & -1 & 0  \\   -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & 1+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & 0 & 0  \\   -1 & 0 & 1 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right), {{K}_{EF}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 1 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}  \\   0 & 0 & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} & 1+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ The nodal displacements are solved from the global system as:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

d=\frac{1}{2\cdot {{10}^{9}}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   20\sqrt{2}+10  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   10  \\   20\sqrt{2}+20  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right) $$

 * }.

d.

The force matrix also can be solved from the global system as:

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

F=\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   -10  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   -10  \\   10  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\   10  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right) $$

 * }.

Stresses in the elements:

From page 34 of the textbook, Jacob Fish and Ted Belytschko, A first course in Finite Elements, we can compute the stress in elements as follow: Element 1:

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{\sigma }^{(1)}}=\frac{E}\left( \begin{matrix}  0 & -1 & 0 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right)\frac{1}{2\cdot {{10}^{9}}}\left( \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\   20\sqrt{2}+10  \\   10  \\ \end{matrix} \right)=500Pa $$

Element 2:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{\sigma }^{(2)}}=\frac{E}\left( \begin{matrix}  0 & -1 & 0 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right)\frac{1}{2\cdot {{10}^{9}}}\left( \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\   20\sqrt{2}+20  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right)=0Pa $$

Element 3:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{\sigma }^{(3)}}=\frac{E}\left( \begin{matrix}  \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)\frac{1}{2\cdot {{10}^{9}}}\left( \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\   20\sqrt{2}+10  \\   10  \\ \end{matrix} \right)=-1000Pa $$

Element 4:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{\sigma }^{(4)}}=\frac{E}\left( \begin{matrix}  -1 & 0 & 1 & 0  \\ \end{matrix} \right)\frac{1}{2\cdot {{10}^{9}}}\left( \begin{matrix}   20\sqrt{2}+10  \\   10  \\   20\sqrt{2}+20  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right)=500Pa $$

 * }.

Problem solved by Hailong Chen.

=Problem3.5 method 2=

Method 2

We can equivalent the bar structure into above spring structure. In order to show the stiffness of the bar is $$k=\frac{5Etab}{(a+b)l}$$, we need to find the relationship between the external force $$f$$ and the displacement of node $$4$$, as depicted in the equivalent figure above. First, we find out the global stiffness matrix of the system.

For element 1:

Element 1 is numbered with global node 1 and 2.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{k}^{(1)}}=\frac{10atE}{l}

$$ Hence we have the local stiffness for element 1:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(1)}}={{k}^{(1)}}\left( \begin{matrix}  1 & -1  \\   -1 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ For element 2: Element 2 is numbered with global node 2 and 3.
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{k}^{(2)}}=\frac{5btE}{l}

$$ Hence we have the local stiffness for element 2:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(2)}}={{k}^{(2)}}\left( \begin{matrix}  1 & -1  \\   -1 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ For element 3: Element 3 is numbered with global node 3 and 4.
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{k}^{(3)}}=\frac{10atE}{l}

$$ Hence we have the local stiffness for element 3:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(3)}}={{k}^{(3)}}\left( \begin{matrix}  1 & -1  \\   -1 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ Direct assemble, we can obtain the global stiffness matrix as:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #ff0000"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

K=\left( \begin{matrix}  {{k}^{(1)}} & -{{k}^{(1)}} & 0 & 0  \\   -{{k}^{(1)}} & {{k}^{(1)}}+{{k}^{(2)}} & -{{k}^{(2)}} & 0  \\   0 & -{{k}^{(2)}} & {{k}^{(2)}}+{{k}^{(3)}} & -{{k}^{(3)}}  \\   0 & 0 & -{{k}^{(3)}} & {{k}^{(3)}}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ Thus, we have the global system as:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #ff0000"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\left( \begin{matrix}  {{k}^{(1)}} & -{{k}^{(1)}} & 0 & 0  \\   -{{k}^{(1)}} & {{k}^{(1)}}+{{k}^{(2)}} & -{{k}^{(2)}} & 0  \\   0 & -{{k}^{(2)}} & {{k}^{(2)}}+{{k}^{(3)}} & -{{k}^{(3)}}  \\   0 & 0 & -{{k}^{(3)}} & {{k}^{(3)}}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)\left( \begin{matrix}   0  \\   {{u}_{2}}  \\   {{u}_{3}}  \\   {{u}_{4}}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)=\left( \begin{matrix}   {{r}_{1}}  \\   0  \\   0  \\   f  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ Partition the global stiffness matrix after the third row and the third column, we can solve above matrix by block. And finally, we can get:
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\frac{5Etab}{(a+b)l}{{u}_{4}}=f

$$ Hence we have the stiffness of the bar:
 * }

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

k=\frac{5Etab}{(a+b)l} $$

 * }

Problem solved by Hailong Chen.

=Problem3.6 Find global stiffness matrix, nodal displacements, reactions and stresses of bar element=

Problem Statement
Given the three-bar structure subjected to the prescribed load at point C equal to $$ 10^{3} $$ N as shown in Figure 2.19 on page 38. The Young's modulus is $$ E = 10^{11} $$ Pa, the cross-sectional area of the bar BC is $$ 2*10^{-2} m^{2} $$ and that of BD and BF is $$ 10^{-2} m^{2} $$. Note that point D is free to move in the x-direction. Coordinates of the joints are given in meters.

a. Construct the global stiffness matrix and load matrix

b. Partition the matrices and solve for the unknown displacements at point B and displacement in the x-direction at point D

c. Find the stresses in the three bars

d. Find the reactions at the nodes C, D, and F

Solution
a.

We have already subdivided the structure into elements, and numbered the nodes and elements in the figure attached. For constructing the global stiffness matrix and load matrix, we take following 2 steps.

Step 1, deal with the formulation of each element.

Element 1:

Element 1 numbered with global nodes 1 and 4. It’s positioned at an angle $${{\phi }^{(1)}}={{135}^{\circ }}$$ with respect to the positive x-axis. Other relations are as follow:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\cos ({{135}^{\circ }})=-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},\sin ({{135}^{\circ }})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},{{l}^{(1)}}=\sqrt{2}m,{{k}^{(1)}}=\frac{{{A}^{(1)}}E}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}

$$ Hence we can obtain the local stiffness matrix for element 1:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(1)}}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}  \\   -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2}  \\   -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2}  \\   \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ Element 2:
 * }.

Element 2 numbered with global nodes 2 and 4. It’s positioned at an angle $${{\phi }^{(2)}}={{90}^{\circ }}$$ with respect to the positive x-axis. Other relations are as follow:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\cos ({{90}^{\circ }})=0,\sin ({{90}^{\circ }})=1,{{l}^{(2)}}=1m,{{k}^{(2)}}=\frac{{{A}^{(2)}}E}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}

$$ Hence we can obtain the local stiffness matrix for element 2:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(2)}}=2\cdot {{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 1 & 0 & -1  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & -1 & 0 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ Element 3:
 * }.

Element 3 numbered with global nodes 3 and 4. It’s positioned at an angle $${{\phi }^{(3)}}={{45}^{\circ }}$$ with respect to the positive x-axis. Other relations are as follow:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

\cos ({{45}^{\circ }})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},\sin ({{45}^{\circ }})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},{{l}^{(3)}}=\sqrt{2}m,{{k}^{(3)}}=\frac{{{A}^{(3)}}E}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}

$$ Hence we can obtain the local stiffness matrix for element 3:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{K}^{(3)}}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2}  \\   \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2}  \\   -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}  \\   -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$
 * }.

Step 2, assemble the global matrix.

Direct assemble:

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

K={{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 2  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & -2  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & -2  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+2  \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} \right) $$

We also have the load matrix as:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

F=\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   {{r}_{1x}}  \\   {{r}_{1y}}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   {{r}_{2x}}  \\   {{r}_{2y}}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   {{r}_{3y}}  \\   {{10}^{3}}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right) $$

 * }.

b.

Hence we have the global system as:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #ff0000"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{10}^{9}}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 2  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & -2  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   \begin{matrix}   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & -2  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+2  \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} \right)\left( \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 0 \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 0 \\   0  \\   {{u}_{3x}}  \\ \end{matrix} \\ 0 \\   {{u}_{4x}}  \\ {{u}_{4y}} \\ \end{matrix} \right)=\left( \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{r}_{1x}} \\ {{r}_{1y}} \\ \end{matrix} \\ {{r}_{2x}} \\ {{r}_{2y}} \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ {{r}_{3y}} \\ {{10}^{3}} \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ The global system is partitioned after four rows and four columns:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

{{d}_{E}}=\left( \begin{matrix}  0  \\   0  \\   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right),{{d}_{F}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   {{u}_{3x}}  \\   0  \\   {{u}_{4x}}  \\   {{u}_{4y}}  \\ \end{matrix} \right),{{f}_{F}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   0  \\   {{r}_{3y}}  \\   {{10}^{3}}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right),{{K}_{F}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+2  \\ \end{matrix} \right),{{K}_{EF}}=\left( \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 2  \\ \end{matrix} \right)

$$ The nodal displacements are solved from the global system as:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #ff0000"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

d=\frac{1}\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\   0  \\   1+2\sqrt{2}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\   \frac{1}{2}+2\sqrt{2}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)m

$$ The force matrix also can be solved from the global system as:
 * }.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #ff0000"
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle

F=\left( \begin{matrix}  \begin{matrix}   \begin{matrix}   -{{10}^{3}}  \\   {{10}^{3}}  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\   -{{10}^{3}}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\   0  \\   {{10}^{3}}  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right)N

$$
 * }.

c. Stresses in the three elements: Element 1:

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{\sigma }^{(1)}}=\frac{E}\left( \begin{matrix}  \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}  \\ \end{matrix} \right)\frac{1}\left( \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2}+2\sqrt{2}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\   0  \\   0  \\

\end{matrix} \right)=\sqrt{2}\cdot {{10}^{5}}Pa $$

Element 2:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{\sigma }^{(2)}}=\frac{E}\left( \begin{matrix}  0 & -1 & 0 & 1  \\ \end{matrix} \right)\frac{1}\left( \begin{matrix}   \frac{1}{2}+2\sqrt{2}  \\   \frac{1}{2}  \\      0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} \right)=-5\cdot {{10}^{4}}Pa $$

Element 3:
 * }

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{\sigma }^{(3)}}=0_ – ^ – Pa $$

 * }

d. Hence, the displacement at point B is:

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{u}_{Bx}}=(\frac{1}{2}+2\sqrt{2}){{10}^{-6}}m,{{u}_{By}}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot {{10}^{-6}}m $$

The displacement in the x-direction at point D is:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{u}_{Dx}}=(1+2\sqrt{2})\cdot {{10}^{-6}}m $$

The reaction at nodes C, D and F are:
 * }.

 * {| style="width:95%"

 * $$\displaystyle

{{r}_{Cx}}=0,{{r}_{Cy}}=-{{10}^{3}}N,{{r}_{Dx}}=0,{{r}_{Dy}}=0,{{r}_{Fx}}=-{{10}^{3}}N,{{r}_{Fy}}={{10}^{3}}N $$

 * }.

Problem solved by Hailong Chen.

title: User:Eml5526.s11.team3.hylon/Homework 3


text:
User:Egm6341.s11.team2.franklin/hwk3

Problem 5: Evaluate the $$\displaystyle (n+1)^{th}$$ derivative of Lagrange Interpolation Error
''' This problem was solved without referring to S10 homework. '''

From the lecture slide Mtg 16-3

Problem Statement
Verify the following:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

E^{(n+1)}(x)=f^{(n+1)}(x)-0. $$     (5.1)
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 *
 * }

Solution
The Lagrange Interpolation error can be expressed as
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

E(x)=f(x)-f_n(x) , $$     (5.2)
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 *
 * }

where

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

f_n(x) \epsilon \mathcal{P}_n. $$     (5.3)
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 *
 * }

Because $$\displaystyle f_n(x) \epsilon \mathcal{P}_n $$, it is of the form

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

f_n(x)=a_nx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+...+a_1x+a_0. $$     (5.4)
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 *
 * }

Differentiating $$ \displaystyle f_n $$ n times gives

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

f^{(n)}_n(x)=(n!)a_n , $$     (5.5)
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 *
 * }

which is a constant.

Differentiating the expression $$\displaystyle (n+1)$$ times gives

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

E^{n+1}(x)=f^{n+1}(x)-f_n^{n+1}(x) , $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 * (5.6)
 * }

where

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

f_n^{n+1}(x) = 0. $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 * (5.7)
 * }

Therefore,

title: User:Egm6341.s11.team2.franklin/hwk3


text:
User:Sorenhogberg/Identity and language

Reflections on the native speaker

There are different ways of approaching the complex concept of identity. But a very fundamental perspective comes out of the question of what language a person speaks. In fact we have similar words for naming a language and a person, as for example the Swedish language and at the same time a Swedish person. As for me, being a Swedish person, I’ve been brought up in a Swedish speaking environment, able to understand what people around me have been communicating about, never actually dealing with situations when different languages have met on a daily basis. These circumstances have created an uncomplicated question of who I am in relation to a national belonging and the language I’m speaking. However this is not the fact to a huge number of people around the world, as well as in today’s Sweden. The tension between nation and language relates to the concept of the native speaker elaborated by Alan Davis (2003). One of his conclusions is that there can never be a definition of the native speaker. Still the word is used and that’s why it also becomes interesting to find a deeper understanding. Davis divides the discussion into psycholinguistic, linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects.

A psycholinguistic point of view upon the native speaker

When searching for an answer from a psycholinguistic point of view Davis (2003:26) sees four possibilities: 1.	Every individual is a native speaker, which is every person’s own a repertoire of linguistic rules that are under control. This definition though, doesn’t help us much in gaining deeper understanding. It has no explanation and makes it difficult to deal with differences of coordinate or subtractive bilinguals. 2.	Every individual is a native speaker of only one language, acquired as the mother tongue. Also this answer carries problems since it’s not always clear to establish what a person’s mother tongue is. The answer in terms of first language, doesn’t give much further knowledge even when this is possible because it says nothing about competence. 3.	Some individuals are native speakers of more than one language whether or not acquired early in life. The problem Davis arises according to this definition is that bilingual persons doesn’t seem to own similar competence in all contexts. Specific situations are closely connected to certain persons and one of the languages. With this aspect in mind it isn’t possible to talk about native speakers in more than one language. Instead we might have to consider ambilingualism. 4.	Some individuals never achieve native speaker status in any language and may be regarded as semilingual. This answer is build upon the idea that a native speaker has a certain amount of competence. But it is an inverted definition; it doesn’t say what the native speaker is. Furthermore Davis claims the impossibility to judge whether a person is incomplete, in terms of partial or inadequate, in relation to some kind of linguistic system. So we end up with not a good answer to the question of what the native speaker seems to be, when we approach the issue from a psycholinguistic perspective. Even so, the overhaul gives us a possibility to notice the use of these different types of definitions in practice, which in itself carries an analytical value. Before Davis (2003:36) leaves this discussion he take into consideration different theories like Felix’s proposal which claims the existence of two different cognitive systems; both available for language learning. The first is a system of language-specific cognitive structures that are available until puberty. Language learning takes place as a person dwell in an environment of ongoing language communication. The child picks up how to use and when to use the language. The second cognitive language learning system is described as more of a problem solving system, which takes place when we already have a language. The first language is at place and used in order to learn another. This distinction between two systems can be looked upon some kind of answer to what a native speaker is, i.e. a person that has learned a language through a certain kind of learning process; the first one described. But still that doesn’t explain what a native speaker is in relation to bilingualism. Persons can learn more than one language the same way.

A linguistic point of view upon the native speaker

After studying the concept of the native speaker from a psycholinguistic angel Davis (2003:40) gives us a linguistic perspective and says that “Linguistics has as its aim the description of competence…”. In order to elaborate the native speaker in terms of competence he presents three types of grammar as a point of departure. •	Grammar 1; is described as a competence of an individual’s linguistic system •	Grammar 2; is described as a competence of groups shared linguistic system within one language •	Grammar 3; is described as a competence of a universal linguistic system for all language speaking persons Grammar 1 has as its aim to describe an individual’s linguistic system. To some extent this is doable since it’s a single person’s way of communicating and correcting his or hers own mistakes. Grammar 3 could be described as the opposite of Grammar 1 since Grammar 3 aims for a universal description of the native speaker independent from an explicit language. The two extremes on a continuum becomes, according to Davis (2003:44), either psychology (Grammar 1) or philology (Grammar 3), where neither the first nor the third in reality can come up with an answer that deals with the concept of the native speaker in a constructive way. So what is left? Well according to Davis (2003:46) the competence named Grammar 2 has to do with some kind of competence which is shared by a group. Being a native speaker would mean being close linguistically to other speakers, operating with other operators of the same Grammar 2. In other words: Grammar 2 linguistics seems predicated on some kind of sociolinguistic interpretation of social life. (Grammar 1 and 3 seem predicted on a psycholinguistic view.) This conclusion links to the next linguistic point of view upon the native speaker.

A sociolinguistic point of view upon the native speaker

To start with Davis (2003:53) establishes that linguistics is about language while sociolinguistic is about a language, i.e. the singular form of a language spoken by a group of people. Obviously there are different ways how people are able to understand each other. But different languages also carry different understandings which are closely linked to experiences done by different groups of people and their ancestors. The constitution of a group is in fact very much built upon a shared language, including a shared understanding. That is so even though we after a close look realize that every individual can carry a unique personal linguistic system. The role of language is that languages allow for identification. In a speech community there is a great deal of intelligibility but also, as Davies (2003:57) argues a matter of attitude. These two aspects are helpful tools when trying to distinguish the differences between dialect and language. Different languages as well as different dialects carry different attitudes but in linguist terms dialects consist of intelligibility which different languages do not. To continue my retrospective reflection upon my own life I note as I said earlier that I was able to understand everyone’s language spoken. But because my parents had moved to another part of Sweden, I realize that my ability which I still have to speak different dialects also carries different group affiliation including different attitudes to life. Understanding this, is in an odd way an extension of myself being a native speaker of Swedish. But then again what is a native speaker? We shall not forget that Davis has no definition but he makes the conclusion that the phenomenon is connected to Grammar 2 and sociolinguistic aspects. The sociolinguistic point of view also includes a political aspect. According to the explanation above at certain times dialects becomes languages for political reasons which is the case of Norwegian and Danish. Over all the question of borders when understanding how identities are influenced of languages is interesting. To widen the understanding Omoniy (2010:123) talks about frontiers, boundaries and borderlands. Frontiers are looked upon as non static, almost like floating borders, which can differ over time. Boundaries are the outer limit, the determinate physical end and borderland represents the region or a zone on both sides of given boundaries. In this sense borderland represent something that people on both sides of the boundaries have in common even though national borders indicates different official languages on each side. A common way of understanding borders is probably that of a distinction between two differences. The concept of borderland opens up for a complete different understanding i.e. that of a border where it’s possible to meet, to bridge and link people together into mutual interdependence. The question of identity or ethnicity gives us diverse answers according to the type of understanding of borders we comprise. The stronger a culture of borderland the more emphasize tend to stress ethnicity and less national identity and vice versa. Identity can probably be linked to the concept of the native speaker but by no way simply to the official language in a country, not even in Sweden. Omoniy (2010:132) concludes that “the abstract concept of border may become increasingly relevant as we erect mental boundaries to mark, claim, and protect all manners of rights to turfs and domains”. Borders are by no means only geographical; borders can be understood from a sociolinguistic point of view. Jonsson (2007) gives us a rich portrayal of the difficulties to cross over borders with words. When the boy Nejib responds to the researchers many question with the words “Det går inte att förklara” ("It's impossible to explain") this gives us a hint about the difficulties involved (p.255). There is a possibility that the speaker does not know how to explain whatever is to be explained because the words from one context do not fit in another. But there are also possibilities that the speaker, in this case the boy Nejib, does not want to give an explanation since the researcher can be looked upon as belonging to another group of people. Nevertheless in both ways we can understand the problematic situation with the help of mental borders. Mental borders which also may be some kind of an answer to the concept of the native speaker. The example above can be perceived as an aspect of sociolinguistic borders involved when researchers try to conduct ethnographic fieldwork. Dorian (2010) gives us a number of examples on the difficulties of crossing borders. To be able to understand a group of people and give a narrative presentation of another group’s lives seems to be impossible. Researchers have lived for years together with the people that have been their focus without being able to cross the line, because that could be the same as giving up the idea of research. If the object of the scholar is language, well then how can a researcher ever cross borders when s/he isn’t a native speaker, whatever now that is… Dorian (2010:98) presents examples when researchers have made an issue to a common cause just to be allowed to join the group that is the object of the scholar.

Ending

The statement “Det går inte att förklara” presented by Jonsson (2007:255) can be understood as the dilemma of ethnographic fieldwork, as well as the dilemma of ethnographic work can be understood as a bridge across borders where different native speakers meet, which finally can be understood from a sociolinguistic point of view. My reflections in this paper have had as a point of departure the elaboration on the concept of the native speaker made by Davis. This gives me reason to finally pinpoint one of his conclusions. Davis says (2003:65) that the native speaker may be a more useful term in situations where the standard language has an important role to play than in the speech encounters in remote and isolated communities. A rereading of Rickard Jonsson’s ethnographic study of masculinity and language among pupils in a secondary school in Sweden would be interesting to do – this time focusing the idea of the native speaker. It’s there! Even though we don’t exactly know what it is and even though it’s never mentioned (as far as I remember). But it's there in the process of constructing boarders through language.

References

Davies, Alan (2003): The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.

Dorian, Nancy C (2010): Linguistic and Ethnographic Fieldwork. In: Fishman, Joshua A & Garcia, Ofelia (2010): Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Disciplinary and regional perspectives. Volume 1/Second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Jonsson, Rickad (2007): Blatte betyder kompis – om maskulinitet och språk i en högstadieskola. Stockholm: Ordfront

Omoniyi, Tope (2010): Borders. In: Fishman, Joshua A & Garcia, Ofelia (2010): Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Disciplinary and regional perspectives. Volume 1/Second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press

title: User:Sorenhogberg/Identity and language


text:
User talk:Moulton/Roger Schlafly

David Berlinski
Hi Roger,

In case you missed it:

David Berlinski's published opinion is that Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. He also criticizes Darwin's Model for not being scientific enough, because it lacks sufficiently precise mathematical predictions. See these notes for the full quote and for more detailed references to Berlinski's published views. —Moulton (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, I missed that. FeloniousMonk has gotten me banned from WP before because I objected to some of his guilt-by-association tactics. He is always pushing his twisted point of view.

 * I see that the lead paragraph tries to associate Berlinski with ID and says what he "refuses to theorize" about. No neutral encyclopedia would have an opening paragraph like that. Nor would it have a criticism section comparing him to an AIDS denialist. Roger (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * As you probably know, FeloniousMonk was smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power. What you might not know is that w:User:Odd nature was also a sock puppet of FeloniousMonk.  See also this thread on Wikipedia Review.  —Moulton (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * No, I did not know any of that. ArbCom has more sense than I thought. You would think that if he doesn't like Berlinski's opinions, then that would be all the more reason to portray those opinions accurately on WP, so that the faulty views can be documented. But FeloniousMonk does not view it that way. Roger (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Roger, care to do something about this? —Moulton (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I have given up on those jokers. They have no sense of fairness when it comes to anyone who is not an evolution true believer. Roger (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Or you could, you know, help out in expanding the article. It needs a lot more about his books obviously. Note that removal of comments by Moulton is per policy for banned users. Also, note that working with such users may constitute helping them evade a ban. (incidentally I do think that Berlinski's on ID are probably more complicated than the page has them. But it is hard to see how to have a detailed version of them without heavy OR.) Finally, a bit of AGF and avoidance of personal attacks about other users would be nice. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I really don't see how Moulton being banned justifies promoting false info about Berlinski. If you had any sense of fairness, then you would put his comments back. How did he put them there, if he was banned? Was he banned for telling the truth? I am not interested in expanding such a one-sided article. Roger (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. That's the issue I raised 3 1/2 years ago, when FeloniousMonk was still ensconced in power and IDCab still held sway. Here is what I just posted on WP:BLP/N:

I expect Mark Pellegrini, Joshua Zelinsky, name redacted as (i) that person has not given (implicit or explicit) permission to use it & (ii) it contains nothing even-vaguely-resembling "representations of [their] views", or some other remnant of IDCab will balete it, to continue their shameful cover-up.

Barry Kort 9:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is strange. I tried to determine whether Moulton was really banned from WP. From what I have just learned, he got an indefinite ban in 2007. From what I can see, the chief reasons were: (1) he is alleged to favor intelligent design but he repeatedly denies it, (2) he insisted on removing false and derogatory info from biographies of living persons, and (3) he has commented on WP edit issues on non-WP sites. I do not know whether the ban is still in effect, but it appears to me that he is just being silenced for expressing some legitimate views. Roger (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to this when I have time. In the meantime the fact that Moulton is continuing on this very page to out editors who are anonymous while making his conspiratorial rants should make you understand that your perspective on what happened is wrong. (I've deleted removed their names from this page. Please don't restore them). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Is there some reason that you are protecting their identities? These are people who go out of their way to post false and malicious info about living persons. They attack him under his real name. Why shouldn't he respond to them with their real names? The only conspiracy I see that he talks about is this., where various WP editors have identified themselves as having a joint intelligent design trashing project. Roger (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Kindly read w:WP:OUTING, and then w:WP:AGF and w:WP:NPA. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * FYI, now relevant ANI section JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Excellent. Let's get this out in the open, Joshua. It's time for the corruption to come to an end. —Moulton 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are being removed from WP. I cannot fight this battle. You are outnumbered among the interested editors. Schlafly 23:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, I know. I've put them back a few times, but it's mostly a fruitless battle at WP.  What you saw, with the David Berlinski BLP, was just the tip of the iceberg.  Here on Wikiversity, User:JWSchmidt, whose blog I linked to on Facebook, has studied the corrupt practices of IDCab in considerable depth.  I'd be interested in hearing your views on how to address the larger issues of unethical behavior by corrupt editors of WP, such as the one's you just encountered.  —Moulton 23:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
w:Special:Contributions/68.160.142.20

 * 11:07, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly  (→David Berlinski: Joshua Zelinsky illustrates Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed.)
 * 10:52, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard  (→David Berlinski: The time has come to clean up the messes left by and his cronies in IDCab.)
 * 03:36, 10 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly  (→David Berlinski: Roger, care to do something about Joshua Zelinsky's activities?)
 * 20:34, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:David Berlinski  (→Berlinski's Written Commentary: new section)
 * 20:15, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:David Berlinski  (→Bibliographic Reference: new section)
 * 19:49, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace  (→David Berlinski: Can we devise a satisfactory plan? —Moulton)
 * 19:45, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:68.160.142.20  (→David Berlinski: Jonathan, I'm going to need your help to do battle against the remnants of IDCab. How can we go about cleaning up the lingering travesties of these horrendous BLPs?)
 * 19:10, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace  (→David Berlinski: More comments here. —Barry Kort)
 * 19:07, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:68.160.142.20  (→David Berlinski: Actually, there are a lot of problems with that BLP. I'm not a fan of David Berlinski. I happen to think he's a pompous ass. But I also think he deserves to have an accurate BLP.)
 * 16:04, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jonathanwallace  (→David Berlinski: new section)
 * 16:01, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:68.160.142.20  (→David Berlinski: "Incorrigible" comes from the title of Berlinski's own hour-long video, "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski," where he clearly presents those views.)
 * 13:51, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) David Berlinski  (edit summary removed)
 * 12:13, 8 February 2011 (diff | hist) David Berlinski  (→Views: Add some nuanced depth to the characterization of Berlinski's critical attitudes toward both scientific and unscientific models of evolution.)
 * 16:42, 6 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:John lilburne  (→David Berlinski: IDCab used to be led by User:FeloniousMonk, who was roundly smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power.)
 * 00:06, 6 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:John lilburne  (→David Berlinski: new section)
 * 23:44, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly  (→David Berlinski: More information.)
 * 14:01, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Schlafly  (→David Berlinski: new section)
 * 06:44, 5 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard  (→David Berlinski: His published opinion is that ID is not a valid scientific theory. He also criticizes Darwin's Model for not being scientific enough, because it lacks sufficiently precise math.)

title: User talk:Moulton/Roger Schlafly