text:
Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 4

Rather than arguing with you on this, I will simply quote:
 * ''"Essentially, anti-Semitism means either of the following: (1) hostility to Jews as a group which results from no legitimate cause or greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation; or (2)a pejorative perception of Jewish physical or moral traits which is either utterly grundless or a result of irrational generalization and exaggerration.

 * "These definitions can place an atypical and somtimes unwelcome burden on historians, who must consequently make ethnical judgments a central part of historical analysis. Whyen is a cause legitimate or a provocation genuine? At what point does a generalization become irrational or a response exceedinly unethical. Most anti-Semites have unfortunately made such evaluations very simple, but, as Shaye Cohen indicates in his contribution to this volume, these questions become particularly acute when one deals with anti-Semitism in antiquity."''

As for other historians and consensus, have you read Robert Wistrich? His work is seminal in the field. How about Almog? Arendt? Cohn-Sherbok? Hay? Littell (he's great!)? Valentin? Weinberg? (and these are people who covered the general topic, not just specific spisodes and eras. How much of Berger have you read? Exactly what historians are you talking about? Danny 16:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Danny, you are error on this point. You initially claimed that the two sentence you added explained what anti-Semitism is. Your new additions show that David Berger believes that those two definitions are problematic. This conflates modern-day anti-Semitism with an entirely different phenoneon, ancient anti-Jewish beliefs held by non-Jews in antiquity. The entire point of an encyclopedia article is to explain a concept in simple terms that the casual reader can understand. The two sentences you offer are not at all clear or enlightening. If you have a better definition than the various new ones, feel free to add to them. If you think they should be clarified, then please edit and clarify. But don't just totally delete every commonly held definition, except for the two sentences that you happen to like. RK

Do others agree that the new material below, defining anti-Semitism, is clear and useful?

 * Hostility towards Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
 * "The attributing of all or part of one's own misfortunes,and those of one's country, to the presence of Jewish elements in the community, and proposing to remedying this state of affairs by depriving the Jews of certain of their rights; by keeping them out of certain economic or social activities, by expelling them from the country,by exterminating them etc. (Jean Paul Sartre, "Anti-Semite and Jew")
 * "Attitudes and actions against Jews based on the belief that they are uniquely inferior, evil, or deserving of co ndemnation by their very nature, or by historical or supernatural dictates. ("Anti-Semitism: The Causes and Effects Of A Prejudice", Crosser & Halperin)
 * "The hatred and persecution of Jews as a group; not the hatred of persons who happen to be Jews, but rather the hatred of persons because they are Jews" (Charles Glock and Rodney Stark, "Christian Beliefs & Anti -Semitism")

''Hostility toward Jews resulting from no legitimate cause or in a degree that greatly exceeds any legitimate greivances ... Disdain for supposed physical or moral features of Jews, whether baseless, exaggerrated, or rooted in excessive generalization.''

Who wrote this crap? This isn't Slashdot. Chadloder 20:31 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. Worse, it is badly written, and unintentionally anti-Semitic! Consider its language: It says that anti-Semitism is illegitimare hatred of the Jews...but therefore wouldn't it not be anti-Semitic to have a legitimate hatred of the Jews? Duh...every anti-Semite thinks that their hatred of Jews is legitimate. Even the author of that quote points out that this definition is very problematic, and I don't understand why Danny deletes all other definitions to the exclusion of this one.

I agree with Chad- its goyim bashing, as usual.

 * Hmm, I am not following at you. Where do you see attacks against all gentiles? RK

Lets not fight, here. If left at its purest level, anti-semitism is, simply "racism, specifically against Jews" - a dictionary entry, and this is not a dictionary. -Stevert

how about:

 * Anti-semitism, in a nutshell, is racism against Jews. Racism is often unlcear, however, and anti-semitism often takes anti-ethnic forms, as well as anti-religious forms, as well; often all of these are used interchangable, and, some critics say, is often a word thats purpose is to derisively scapegoat people for voicing opinions which are contradictory to mainstream Jewish opinion. This is the core debate between whether someone is an anti-Semite (racism) or an anti-Zionist (politically opposed to Zionism). Once again, these are not the same, despite the fact that Anti-Zionists may often exhibit anti-semitism. Stevert

I don't think Stevert's paragraph is incorrect, but I think it would be better to have a dictionary-style entry as the first paragraph, and then expand it with examples of anti-semitism throughout history, pointers to other pages which discuss anti-semitism or anti-Semites, and maybe a closing paragraph explaining how the term has become more politically loaded, with some saying it is used unfairly to brand anyone critical of the state of Israel or its policies. Chadloder 20:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Danny provided a quote defining anti-semitism, attributed to David Berger, a professor of history at Brooklyn College. Chadloder wrote, "Who wrote this...?" Chad, the answer is right there, please read the page you are quoting! RK wrote that the Berger himself finds the definition problematic. RK, I have only read the quotes Danny provided, and if there is additional context you want to share with us, please do. But based solely on the text quotes, I donot agree with your reading. I believe Berger is saying that these definitions of anti-semitism create problems for historians, but that is not the same thing as "problematic." To me, problematic suggests the definitions are wrong or limited; but I think Berger is saying that there is something limited about conventional history, and that the study of anti-semitism challenges historians to be more creative or engaged or innovative in their work.

 * Steve, what you write seems reasonable. Still, a problem with Danny's proposed text is that Prof. Berger has written a lot on anti-Semitism, and has defined it in a number of ways. Yet Danny rejects all definitions by Berger, and by all others, and only wants this one academic definition alone. I am only saying that ee need a clearly readable summary at the beginning of every Wikipedia article. I don't understand why this enrages Danny. RK

In any event, I agree that an academic definition may not be the best way to frame the whole article. But I certainly do think that an encyclopedia article is meant to report on scholarship. Chad and Stevert, it doesn't matter whether we like Berger's definition or not. This article is not about what you or I think. It is an account, based on a survey of scholarhsip, of a particular topic. If Jewish leaders (e.g. how does B'nai Brith define anti-semitism), and academics like historians, sociologists, and otehrs, have differing definitions of anti-semitism, our task is not to choose which one we like the most, our task is to present these definitions and enough context so that readers can understand why there are different, even conflicting, definitions. Slrubenstein

- Some responses to RK, Chadloder, and Svertigo.

RK, you seem to think that Berger is refuting himself in the second paragraph I cited. Hardly. A "burden on historians" is not a refutation--he is simply saying that in some instances, historians hold a subjective view of whether a particular act was anti-Semitically motivated or not. An example of that appears below--the ransacking and razing of the Jewish Temple at Yeb (Elephantine), which was an act against Jews but not necessarily anti-Semitic. As for simply saying anti-Semitism is racism, that is an over-simplification of Berger's second point. Briefly put, Berger's points are A) hostility toward Jews without any cause ("I just don't like Jews") or in excess of just cause ("A Jew ripped me off, so all Jews are dishonest"); and B) Stereotyping, similarly groundless ("Jews hate Christians") or based on exaggeration and generalization ("Some Jews have big noses, so Jews have big noses"), this later can be both physical ("Jews are dirty") or ethical ("Jews are cheap"). It should be obvious that all of the above statements in parentheses are examples of this.

As for calling it racism, this too is not accurate. Anti-Semitism can be racist, but it does not have to be (the claim that there were a preponderant number of Jews in the trans-Atlantic slavetrade, as refuted by Faber, is anti-Semitic but not racist; similarly, pointing out that the number of Jews involved in the Russian Revolution can be anti-Semitic while not racist). This is an important distinction too, since it serves as the difference between medieval Christian anti-Semitism, which could be rectified through the act of conversion, and Nazi anti-Semitism, which could not.

Berger's definition is encompassing all variations of anti-Semitism, ancient and modern. The two are different, and there are various shades in between. I have yet to hear you give an alternative source from Berger, where he defines anti-Semitism any differently. What is your basis for saying that he does? (oh, and I have also read several hundred pages of Berger, and they were on the topic of anti-Semitism). If you do not have one, then it is you, noty me, who is misrepresenting his views.

I found the other definitions inadequate. Here is why:
 * 1) Webster: What about if Jews are in the majority? Can the Arab minority in Israel be anti-Semitic? If you say yes, this definition is inadequate.
 * 2) Sartre: What if you don't think the Jews are the cause of your misfortune, but you personally do not like them? Let them do what they want as long as they do not live on my street or join my country club. According to a strict reading of Sartre, that is not anti-Semitism either.
 * 3) Grosser and Halperin: Ditto. Jews are not evil. They are just culturally different, so I prefer to avoid them. According to their definition, that is not anti-Semitism either. By the way, read their next paragraph, which actually clarifies this: "This definition may or may not apply to attacks against Jews apparently motivated by considerations such as philosophical differences [such as the Church--my reading], power struggles [Palestinian-Israeli conflict, also my reading] and political maneuverings [Jesse Jackson's Hymie-town remark, also my reading]]; however, it does apply when culturally-induced, subconscious or surrounding prejudices are consciously or unconsciously utilized. Hmmmm.
 * 4) Glock and Stark: This one is closest to a real definition, but I find it inadequate because it fails to actually describe the various forms that their "hatred" can take. The definition I propose does.

By the way, why do you think those are commonly held definitions? The only one that has any claim to that is the Webster definition, and even that is problematic. As in Glock and Stark, it fails to delineate the various forms of hatred, covering them up in a general blanket statement.

What you think of my historical writing is pretty irrelevant. Your platitudes about me being potentially a "great" contributor are pretty meaningless too. I do not trash stuff because you write it. I will remove stuff that is inaccurate, poorly worded, overly-simplistic, false, incomplete, or confused. We can also turn your question around, of course. Why do you feel so threatened when I challenge your work? Don't bother answering. I don't really care. I am taking your advice. I stick to scholarship, not pop answers. I would hope you do the same.

As for Chadloder, exactly why is it crap? What is wrong with it? It is a definition by a scholar. You can be more specific than that. Back to RK. You write that you agree with Chadloder that it is crap. Forget me, for a minute. This is the definition Berger gives (read the book--you'll see it is). Are you saying his definition is crap?

As for Svertigo: How is it the hyperbolic "goyim-bashing"? In fact, if you read it carefully, you will see that it is anything but that. In fact, ten pages down, the author of the original actually takes a position that might surprise you: The failure of the Arabs to embrace the Zionist immigrants was hardly unexpected and is not in itself grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism. In other words, he rejects some of the popular notions of what is and what isn't anti-Semitism and takes a more stringent view of it. On the other hand, your proposed definition does not define what racism is. Furthermore, calling it racism begs the assumption that Jews are a race. Not a statement I'd be willing to make.

Finally, do what you want. Once again, I am sorry if the fact that I have actually studied the topic, write about the topic, and teach the topic is a hindrance to your preconceivced notions about the topic. As with the timeline for Jewish History, we have yet another topic that I have been chased away from because I commit the crime of actually knowing something about it. And when will you be graduating, RK? Danny 22:01 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * I hope that Wikipedia users are aware that Danny is making things up. Danny was never chased away from that entry. In fact, I repeatedly asked him to contribute to that entry, and said that if he has problems with it, then go ahead and edit it. If someone takes the time to review the records, they will find that the real problem was that Danny vandalized the article by deleting it entirely, and he refused to do any edits on, despite our requests. Honestly, I can't figure out this man's needless hostility. RK

--- I appreciate the long, well thought out above by Slrub and Danny. I'm speaking as a non-Jew, who is obviously not informed as to the nuanced history of anti-semitism, but Im not speaking out of ignorance, nor, do I think Im in dasagreement with any major points above except those few that seem to attempt to confuse the thrust. (like we deal with on other high controvesy articles) But speaking as a novice, and with an ability to articulate my impressions decently, Im keen to point out poorly written leads, (first thing I see).

Lets start with my idea that the nuanced details belong, in some order in the article. Then lets add to this my readership, perhaps as an "ignorant NPOV" (like in neural net programming), and I'm seeking clarification; The article should lay out clearly. But this is not new. Lets suppose the reality, that someone comes to this article with some vague, biased, or otherwise concept of what anti-semitism is: There needs to be the tie to the general, to place it all in some inteeligent frame. Here's my prejudice :

 * Anti-semitism is a vulgar term for racism and other forms of ethnic discrimination against Jews. It's history is long, and nuanced, and it has threads in nearly all parts of the world. The reasons, are linked closely to xenophobia, and its trait symptoms.

 * Anti-Semitism's long history, has developed the maintenance of this record, as a historical science; :human history/ethnic conflict/racism/antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a specialized aspect of racism. But because Judiasm is not simply an issue of race, but of religion, and of (currently) nationality, the term anti-semitism has come to be applied to many aspects of Jews and Jewish culture, though many of these be identical aspects in discrimination of other cultures; Arab physical traits, for example bear familiarity with Jewish traits.

 * working conclusion: So, its not invalid for some to argue that anti-semitism often has too wide a context, to encompass any aspect of conflict with Jews, though these conflics are not race related.

So a decision must be made then: Either one says anti-Semitism is: ethnic discrimination against Jews, (thus, a valid basis for historical research) or it must be represented as a colloquial referent: unclear and with broad usage in its meaning. (not valid as a basis for historical research) Both should be included, but in a way that clearly marks the line between its scientific usage and its political usage. see: here for a simplified breakdown on my "deep thoughts" of this word's use.

Thus, from my point of view, its valid to state anti-Semitism as a subset of historical science ( human history/ethnic conflict/racism/anti-Semitism) and contain within said heading the history of... But's its also valid to point out anti-Semitism has a recent and relevant history of political use, as a derisive word. In the US, anti-semitism gets "all the press"; as a novice, im wondering, how is it that other forms of ethnic based discrimination must share the word "racism," while Jews are priveliged their own special word for racism, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination...ad inf.. ? What misconceptions am I operating under, please, before I dive in and start another NPOV based edit war. ? -;) ---Stevert

Svertigo, thank you for your comment. I hhave to run out for an hour but I will answer you as soon as I get back Danny 23:48 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Back. Svertigo, I am not sure I properly understood everything you wrote, but I will try to answer as I do understand it. I apologize if I misread what you are saying.

First of all, I agree with you that anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the hatred of a specific group (I am hesitant to use the term racism because of the implication that Jews are a race), and that this phenomenon has distinct parallels in other forms of hatred and racism, such as, for example, the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans, etc. They are all subsets of a much larger phenomenon of xenophobia.

I also agree with you that the term anti-Semitism often has "too wide a context" (your term). For me this means that the term is bandied about too freely (I would even go so far as to say as a hyperbolic phrase used to score political points, but that is just my POV). That is why I believe that a carefully worded definition is so important. It will help us to determine whether charges of anti-Semitism are based in fact or rhetoric (this will be especially important today when discussing the anti-Semitism-anti-Zionism discussion. Personally, again, I believe that one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic--in fact up to WW2, most Jews were.).

I disagree that anti-Semitism is a form of ethnic discrimination. One can be racist without discriminating against someone. Segregation is officially ended in America, but that is not to say that anti-Black racism has disappeared, or that it will never retransform into discrimination.

I also believe (and I have solid grounds for this) that anti-Semitism played an important role in the emergence of Western culture. Furthermore, Jews and Gypsies were the most visible ethnic minorities in Europe for centuries. This in itself makes anti-Semitism worthy of an article. It also relates to why it has a distinct name, unlike other forms of racism. In fact, anti-Semitism was a political philosophy in 19th century Europe: it was part of the platform of some parties and the raisôn d'etre of others. While my take on it is that scapegoating was an easy way to deflect criticism of the government or ruling elites (for instance, Russia and the Hapsburgs), the fact that this could even become a political platform is worthy of an article.

That being said, I agree with you that anti-Semitism is worthy of an article since it is a prominent subset of xenophobia that had a lasting impact on society (the Holocaust, for one, but there are also many other instances, including the rise of the middle class and settlement in the New World, all of which relate in one way or another to anti-Semitism). As for the "privileged" special term to describe anti-Jewish sentiment--well, it was coined by the anti-Semites to describe themselves. I wish they hadn't coined it, but then again, I wish they weren't anti-Semitic either. In other words, the fact that there is such a word shows how rampant anti-Semitism was in the culture of the time. And yes, calling people anti-Semitic to score political points is deplorable. That makes an accurate and carefully worded definition all the more important. Danny 00:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about the "definition" of anti-semitism in the current version of the article. I don't care who the author was or what college he teaches at. Crap is crap. If it takes a simple thing and makes it less clear than it ought to be, it's crap and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm withdrawing from further discussions about this topic. I don't think this HAS to be politically charged, but you are making it so, and I don't have the time to argue with you. If you want to grind your axe here, go for it. Chadloder 01:10 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Well I dont see how this is so politically charged, and rather find it a well conducted clarification - (wikipedia isnt a chat after all;) I did however see a diasporic (?) debate going on, and thought Id better jump in, so people could unite in debasing my POV.

Ill stipulate that we aggre heavily, Danny, and I found much of it informative; It also doesnt sound like you and RK are arguing over much in particular. So ill limit my comments here to the interesting parts which I might chime in on, and leave it at that for a while:

 * "I disagree that anti-Semitism is a form of ethnic discrimination" One can be racist without discriminating against someone. Segregation is officially ended in America, but that is not to say that anti-Black racism has disappeared, or that it will never retransform into discrimination."

This struck me as antithetical to everything I believe in about ethnic conflicts, although in an innocent sorta way. Ethnic discrimination is quite a broad genre, and anti-Semitism, in order to not fall under it, would have to be highly-specialized indeed. And the typical problem with specialized charachterizations is that nobody knows what the definitons of this and that are, and so nobody agrees, and therefore it remains an island unto itself, for its own sake, and forsaking all reason. -SV

 * Okay. My understanding of "discrimination" is specific acts taken against another group. You seem to have a wider definition. We may not be in disagreement after all. Danny

sv continued: On the other hand, if you accept ethnic discrimination, (as a factor of ethnic conflict, and a universally applicable, humanist term for classification of this phenomenon) then we seem to be making sense. Maybe were not in agreement after all, but anyway...

 * "I also believe (and I have solid grounds for this) that anti-Semitism played an important role in the emergence of Western culture."

LOL - this is like my theory (seriously) that pedophilia drove the formation of the Church's social structure. hehe... I like your theory, and I think its almost axiomatic: Jews, unlike most other ethnic groups (in addition to having a long history, belonging to the founding relgion from which sprang Christianity, Islam...etc ) have a distinction of sticking it out where they were not "wanted", in one way or another, either out of facility, or sticktuitiveness, or some other "ethnic" traits that's best left to mere speculation. As such, Jews must have played a role in ethnic identity developments in the west, simply by being the everpresent xenoculture.-Stevert

 * In a sense, sure. Not sure if I would use the word "sticktuitiveness" (lol) but I certainly agree with what you say about the "everpresent xenoculture." That, accompanied by the Jewish roots of the Church, make for an interesting outcome.

 * BTW, thanks for the comments. They forced me to clarify my position, and that is always a good thing. Have a great night. Danny 02:11 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Some way back, someone asked if legitimate hatred of Jews was anti-Semitic, in response to the definition in the article. My response is no: if Fred and Joanne beat me up and steal my money, and Fred and Joanne happen to be Jewish, and as a result of getting mugged I hate Fred and Joanne, then that hatred is not anti-Semitic, unless I hate them in a degree that greatly exceeds my legitimate grievance at getting mugged. However, if I mis-generalise to saying that all Jews are muggers, or that all Jews in England are muggers, then I am anti-Semitic. Martin

 * Hehe :He also misstated the question: "Hatred of..." a general group.. If the question is: "is it alright to hate Fred and Joanne", then I dont see how RK can reasonably disagree with you. Although, he doesnt seem to need reason, unless he reasons one.-Stevert

 * Well, even for a general group, if a Palestinian has his house demolished by the Israeli army, and consequently hates Israeli soldiers, the Israeli politicians who order them, and the Israeli civilians who voted for those politicians, then that's not anti-Semitism, unless sie hates them in a degree that greatly exceeds hir legitimate grievance at losing hir home and all hir possessions. If sie mis-generalises to hating Israelis who are too young to vote or serve in the army, and Jews living in other countries, or people who died before the creation of the state of Israel, then that's anti-Semitism. Martin

title: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 4


text:
Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 5

Rather than arguing with you on this, I will simply quote:
 * ''"Essentially, anti-Semitism means either of the following: (1) hostility to Jews as a group which results from no legitimate cause or greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation; or (2)a pejorative perception of Jewish physical or moral traits which is either utterly grundless or a result of irrational generalization and exaggerration.

 * "These definitions can place an atypical and somtimes unwelcome burden on historians, who must consequently make ethnical judgments a central part of historical analysis. Whyen is a cause legitimate or a provocation genuine? At what point does a generalization become irrational or a response exceedinly unethical. Most anti-Semites have unfortunately made such evaluations very simple, but, as Shaye Cohen indicates in his contribution to this volume, these questions become particularly acute when one deals with anti-Semitism in antiquity."''

As for other historians and consensus, have you read Robert Wistrich? His work is seminal in the field. How about Almog? Arendt? Cohn-Sherbok? Hay? Littell (he's great!)? Valentin? Weinberg? (and these are people who covered the general topic, not just specific spisodes and eras. How much of Berger have you read? Exactly what historians are you talking about? Danny 16:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Danny, it seems as if this quote states the opposite of what you initially claimed. You initially wrote that the two sentence you added explained what anti-Semitism is. Your new additions show that David Berger believes that those two definitions are problematic. This conflates modern-day anti-Semitism with an entirely different phenoneon, ancient anti-Jewish beliefs held by non-Jews in antiquity. RK

Danny, we need to revert your reversion, and add back some or all of the new material. Why? Because the entire point of an encyclopedia article is to explain a concept in simple terms that the casual reader can understand. You need to stop deleting contributins from anyone which explain the common-useage of this word. That is what the beginning summary of any article requires. The two sentences you offer are not at all clear or enlightening. If you have a better definition than the various new ones, feel free to add to them. If you think they should be clarified, then please edit and clarify. But don't just totally delete every commonly held definition, except for the two sentences that you happen to like. RK

Do others agree that the new material below, defining anti-Semitism, is clear and useful?

 * Hostility towards Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
 * "The attributing of all or part of one's own misfortunes,and those of one's country, to the presence of Jewish elements in the community, and proposing to remedying this state of affairs by depriving the Jews of certain of their rights; by keeping them out of certain economic or social activities, by expelling them from the country,by exterminating them etc. (Jean Paul Sartre, "Anti-Semite and Jew")
 * "Attitudes and actions against Jews based on the belief that they are uniquely inferior, evil, or deserving of co ndemnation by their very nature, or by historical or supernatural dictates. ("Anti-Semitism: The Causes and Effects Of A Prejudice", Crosser & Halperin)
 * "The hatred and persecution of Jews as a group; not the hatred of persons who happen to be Jews, but rather the hatred of persons because they are Jews" (Charles Glock and Rodney Stark, "Christian Beliefs & Anti -Semitism")

''Hostility toward Jews resulting from no legitimate cause or in a degree that greatly exceeds any legitimate greivances ... Disdain for supposed physical or moral features of Jews, whether baseless, exaggerrated, or rooted in excessive generalization.''

Who wrote this crap? This isn't Slashdot. Chadloder 20:31 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. Worse, it is badly written, and unintentionally anti-Semitic! Consider its language: It says that anti-Semitism is illegitimare hatred of the Jews...but therefore wouldn't it not be anti-Semitic to have a legitimate hatred of the Jews? Duh...every anti-Semite thinks that their hatred of Jews is legitimate. Even the author of that quote points out that this definition is very problematic, and I don't understand why Danny deletes all other definitions to the exclusion of this one.

I agree with Chad- its goyim bashing, as usual.

 * Hmm, I am not following at you. Where do you see attacks against all gentiles? RK

Lets not fight, here. If left at its purest level, anti-semitism is, simply "racism, specifically against Jews" - a dictionary entry, and this is not a dictionary. -Stevert

how about:

 * Anti-semitism, in a nutshell, is racism against Jews. Racism is often unlcear, however, and anti-semitism often takes anti-ethnic forms, as well as anti-religious forms, as well; often all of these are used interchangable, and, some critics say, is often a word thats purpose is to derisively scapegoat people for voicing opinions which are contradictory to mainstream Jewish opinion. This is the core debate between whether someone is an anti-Semite (racism) or an anti-Zionist (politically opposed to Zionism). Once again, these are not the same, despite the fact that Anti-Zionists may often exhibit anti-semitism. Stevert

I don't think Stevert's paragraph is incorrect, but I think it would be better to have a dictionary-style entry as the first paragraph, and then expand it with examples of anti-semitism throughout history, pointers to other pages which discuss anti-semitism or anti-Semites, and maybe a closing paragraph explaining how the term has become more politically loaded, with some saying it is used unfairly to brand anyone critical of the state of Israel or its policies. Chadloder 20:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Danny provided a quote defining anti-semitism, attributed to David Berger, a professor of history at Brooklyn College. Chadloder wrote, "Who wrote this...?" Chad, the answer is right there, please read the page you are quoting! RK wrote that the Berger himself finds the definition problematic. RK, I have only read the quotes Danny provided, and if there is additional context you want to share with us, please do. But based solely on the text quotes, I donot agree with your reading. I believe Berger is saying that these definitions of anti-semitism create problems for historians, but that is not the same thing as "problematic." To me, problematic suggests the definitions are wrong or limited; but I think Berger is saying that there is something limited about conventional history, and that the study of anti-semitism challenges historians to be more creative or engaged or innovative in their work.

In any event, I agree that an academic definition may not be the best way to frame the whole article. But I certainly do think that an encyclopedia article is meant to report on scholarship. Chad and Stevert, it doesn't matter whether we like Berger's definition or not. This article is not about what you or I think. It is an account, based on a survey of scholarhsip, of a particular topic. If Jewish leaders (e.g. how does B'nai Brith define anti-semitism), and academics like historians, sociologists, and otehrs, have differing definitions of anti-semitism, our task is not to choose which one we like the most, our task is to present these definitions and enough context so that readers can understand why there are different, even conflicting, definitions. Slrubenstein

- Some responses to RK, Chadloder, and Svertigo.

RK, you seem to think that Berger is refuting himself in the second paragraph I cited. Hardly. A "burden on historians" is not a refutation--he is simply saying that in some instances, historians hold a subjective view of whether a particular act was anti-Semitically motivated or not. An example of that appears below--the ransacking and razing of the Jewish Temple at Yeb (Elephantine), which was an act against Jews but not necessarily anti-Semitic. As for simply saying anti-Semitism is racism, that is an over-simplification of Berger's second point. Briefly put, Berger's points are A) hostility toward Jews without any cause ("I just don't like Jews") or in excess of just cause ("A Jew ripped me off, so all Jews are dishonest"); and B) Stereotyping, similarly groundless ("Jews hate Christians") or based on exaggeration and generalization ("Some Jews have big noses, so Jews have big noses"), this later can be both physical ("Jews are dirty") or ethical ("Jews are cheap"). It should be obvious that all of the above statements in parentheses are examples of this.

As for calling it racism, this too is not accurate. Anti-Semitism can be racist, but it does not have to be (the claim that there were a preponderant number of Jews in the trans-Atlantic slavetrade, as refuted by Faber, is anti-Semitic but not racist; similarly, pointing out that the number of Jews involved in the Russian Revolution can be anti-Semitic while not racist). This is an important distinction too, since it serves as the difference between medieval Christian anti-Semitism, which could be rectified through the act of conversion, and Nazi anti-Semitism, which could not.

Berger's definition is encompassing all variations of anti-Semitism, ancient and modern. The two are different, and there are various shades in between. I have yet to hear you give an alternative source from Berger, where he defines anti-Semitism any differently. What is your basis for saying that he does? (oh, and I have also read several hundred pages of Berger, and they were on the topic of anti-Semitism). If you do not have one, then it is you, noty me, who is misrepresenting his views.

I found the other definitions inadequate. Here is why:
 * 1) Webster: What about if Jews are in the majority? Can the Arab minority in Israel be anti-Semitic? If you say yes, this definition is inadequate.
 * 2) Sartre: What if you don't think the Jews are the cause of your misfortune, but you personally do not like them? Let them do what they want as long as they do not live on my street or join my country club. According to a strict reading of Sartre, that is not anti-Semitism either.
 * 3) Grosser and Halperin: Ditto. Jews are not evil. They are just culturally different, so I prefer to avoid them. According to their definition, that is not anti-Semitism either. By the way, read their next paragraph, which actually clarifies this: "This definition may or may not apply to attacks against Jews apparently motivated by considerations such as philosophical differences [such as the Church--my reading], power struggles [Palestinian-Israeli conflict, also my reading] and political maneuverings [Jesse Jackson's Hymie-town remark, also my reading]]; however, it does apply when culturally-induced, subconscious or surrounding prejudices are consciously or unconsciously utilized. Hmmmm.
 * 4) Glock and Stark: This one is closest to a real definition, but I find it inadequate because it fails to actually describe the various forms that their "hatred" can take. The definition I propose does.

By the way, why do you think those are commonly held definitions? The only one that has any claim to that is the Webster definition, and even that is problematic. As in Glock and Stark, it fails to delineate the various forms of hatred, covering them up in a general blanket statement.

What you think of my historical writing is pretty irrelevant. Your platitudes about me being potentially a "great" contributor are pretty meaningless too. I do not trash stuff because you write it. I will remove stuff that is inaccurate, poorly worded, overly-simplistic, false, incomplete, or confused. We can also turn your question around, of course. Why do you feel so threatened when I challenge your work? Don't bother answering. I don't really care. I am taking your advice. I stick to scholarship, not pop answers. I would hope you do the same.

As for Chadloder, exactly why is it crap? What is wrong with it? It is a definition by a scholar. You can be more specific than that. Back to RK. You write that you agree with Chadloder that it is crap. Forget me, for a minute. This is the definition Berger gives (read the book--you'll see it is). Are you saying his definition is crap?

As for Svertigo: How is it the hyperbolic "goyim-bashing"? In fact, if you read it carefully, you will see that it is anything but that. In fact, ten pages down, the author of the original actually takes a position that might surprise you: The failure of the Arabs to embrace the Zionist immigrants was hardly unexpected and is not in itself grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism. In other words, he rejects some of the popular notions of what is and what isn't anti-Semitism and takes a more stringent view of it. On the other hand, your proposed definition does not define what racism is. Furthermore, calling it racism begs the assumption that Jews are a race. Not a statement I'd be willing to make.

Finally, do what you want. Once again, I am sorry if the fact that I have actually studied the topic, write about the topic, and teach the topic is a hindrance to your preconceivced notions about the topic. As with the timeline for Jewish History, we have yet another topic that I have been chased away from because I commit the crime of actually knowing something about it. And when will you be graduating, RK? Danny 22:01 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * I hope that Wikipedia users are aware that Danny is making things up. Danny was never chased away from that entry. In fact, I repeatedly asked him to contribute to that entry, and said that if he has problems with it, then go ahead and edit it. If someone takes the time to review the records, they will find that the real problem was that Danny vandalized the article by deleting it entirely, and he refused to do any edits on, despite our requests. Honestly, I can't figure out this man's needless hostility. RK

--- I appreciate the long, well thought out above by Slrub and Danny. I'm speaking as a non-Jew, who is obviously not informed as to the nuanced history of anti-semitism, but Im not speaking out of ignorance, nor, do I think Im in dasagreement with any major points above except those few that seem to attempt to confuse the thrust. (like we deal with on other high controvesy articles) But speaking as a novice, and with an ability to articulate my impressions decently, Im keen to point out poorly written leads, (first thing I see).

Lets start with my idea that the nuanced details belong, in some order in the article. Then lets add to this my readership, perhaps as an "ignorant NPOV" (like in neural net programming), and I'm seeking clarification; The article should lay out clearly. But this is not new. Lets suppose the reality, that someone comes to this article with some vague, biased, or otherwise concept of what anti-semitism is: There needs to be the tie to the general, to place it all in some inteeligent frame. Here's my prejudice :

 * Anti-semitism is a vulgar term for racism and other forms of ethnic discrimination against Jews. It's history is long, and nuanced, and it has threads in nearly all parts of the world. The reasons, are linked closely to xenophobia, and its trait symptoms.

 * Anti-Semitism's long history, has developed the maintenance of this record, as a historical science; :human history/ethnic conflict/racism/antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a specialized aspect of racism. But because Judiasm is not simply an issue of race, but of religion, and of (currently) nationality, the term anti-semitism has come to be applied to many aspects of Jews and Jewish culture, though many of these be identical aspects in discrimination of other cultures; Arab physical traits, for example bear familiarity with Jewish traits.

 * working conclusion: So, its not invalid for some to argue that anti-semitism often has too wide a context, to encompass any aspect of conflict with Jews, though these conflics are not race related.

So a decision must be made then: Either one says anti-Semitism is: ethnic discrimination against Jews, (thus, a valid basis for historical research) or it must be represented as a colloquial referent: unclear and with broad usage in its meaning. (not valid as a basis for historical research) Both should be included, but in a way that clearly marks the line between its scientific usage and its political usage. see: here for a simplified breakdown on my "deep thoughts" of this word's use.

Thus, from my point of view, its valid to state anti-Semitism as a subset of historical science ( human history/ethnic conflict/racism/anti-Semitism) and contain within said heading the history of... But's its also valid to point out anti-Semitism has a recent and relevant history of political use, as a derisive word. In the US, anti-semitism gets "all the press"; as a novice, im wondering, how is it that other forms of ethnic based discrimination must share the word "racism," while Jews are priveliged their own special word for racism, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination...ad inf.. ? What misconceptions am I operating under, please, before I dive in and start another NPOV based edit war. ? -;) ---Stevert

Svertigo, thank you for your comment. I hhave to run out for an hour but I will answer you as soon as I get back Danny 23:48 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Back. Svertigo, I am not sure I properly understood everything you wrote, but I will try to answer as I do understand it. I apologize if I misread what you are saying.

First of all, I agree with you that anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the hatred of a specific group (I am hesitant to use the term racism because of the implication that Jews are a race), and that this phenomenon has distinct parallels in other forms of hatred and racism, such as, for example, the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans, etc. They are all subsets of a much larger phenomenon of xenophobia.

I also agree with you that the term anti-Semitism often has "too wide a context" (your term). For me this means that the term is bandied about too freely (I would even go so far as to say as a hyperbolic phrase used to score political points, but that is just my POV). That is why I believe that a carefully worded definition is so important. It will help us to determine whether charges of anti-Semitism are based in fact or rhetoric (this will be especially important today when discussing the anti-Semitism-anti-Zionism discussion. Personally, again, I believe that one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic--in fact up to WW2, most Jews were.).

I disagree that anti-Semitism is a form of ethnic discrimination. One can be racist without discriminating against someone. Segregation is officially ended in America, but that is not to say that anti-Black racism has disappeared, or that it will never retransform into discrimination.

I also believe (and I have solid grounds for this) that anti-Semitism played an important role in the emergence of Western culture. Furthermore, Jews and Gypsies were the most visible ethnic minorities in Europe for centuries. This in itself makes anti-Semitism worthy of an article. It also relates to why it has a distinct name, unlike other forms of racism. In fact, anti-Semitism was a political philosophy in 19th century Europe: it was part of the platform of some parties and the raisôn d'etre of others. While my take on it is that scapegoating was an easy way to deflect criticism of the government or ruling elites (for instance, Russia and the Hapsburgs), the fact that this could even become a political platform is worthy of an article.

That being said, I agree with you that anti-Semitism is worthy of an article since it is a prominent subset of xenophobia that had a lasting impact on society (the Holocaust, for one, but there are also many other instances, including the rise of the middle class and settlement in the New World, all of which relate in one way or another to anti-Semitism). As for the "privileged" special term to describe anti-Jewish sentiment--well, it was coined by the anti-Semites to describe themselves. I wish they hadn't coined it, but then again, I wish they weren't anti-Semitic either. In other words, the fact that there is such a word shows how rampant anti-Semitism was in the culture of the time. And yes, calling people anti-Semitic to score political points is deplorable. That makes an accurate and carefully worded definition all the more important. Danny 00:56 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about the "definition" of anti-semitism in the current version of the article. I don't care who the author was or what college he teaches at. Crap is crap. If it takes a simple thing and makes it less clear than it ought to be, it's crap and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm withdrawing from further discussions about this topic. I don't think this HAS to be politically charged, but you are making it so, and I don't have the time to argue with you. If you want to grind your axe here, go for it. Chadloder 01:10 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Well I dont see how this is so politically charged, and rather find it a well conducted clarification - (wikipedia isnt a chat after all;) I did however see a diasporic (?) debate going on, and thought Id better jump in, so people could unite in debasing my POV.

Ill stipulate that we aggre heavily, Danny, and I found much of it informative; It also doesnt sound like you and RK are arguing over much in particular. So ill limit my comments here to the interesting parts which I might chime in on, and leave it at that for a while:

 * "I disagree that anti-Semitism is a form of ethnic discrimination" One can be racist without discriminating against someone. Segregation is officially ended in America, but that is not to say that anti-Black racism has disappeared, or that it will never retransform into discrimination."

This struck me as antithetical to everything I believe in about ethnic conflicts, although in an innocent sorta way. Ethnic discrimination is quite a broad genre, and anti-Semitism, in order to not fall under it, would have to be highly-specialized indeed. And the typical problem with specialized charachterizations is that nobody knows what the definitons of this and that are, and so nobody agrees, and therefore it remains an island unto itself, for its own sake, and forsaking all reason. -SV

 * Okay. My understanding of "discrimination" is specific acts taken against another group. You seem to have a wider definition. We may not be in disagreement after all. Danny

sv continued: On the other hand, if you accept ethnic discrimination, (as a factor of ethnic conflict, and a universally applicable, humanist term for classification of this phenomenon) then we seem to be making sense. Maybe were not in agreement after all, but anyway...

 * "I also believe (and I have solid grounds for this) that anti-Semitism played an important role in the emergence of Western culture."

LOL - this is like my theory (seriously) that pedophilia drove the formation of the Church's social structure. hehe... I like your theory, and I think its almost axiomatic: Jews, unlike most other ethnic groups (in addition to having a long history, belonging to the founding relgion from which sprang Christianity, Islam...etc ) have a distinction of sticking it out where they were not "wanted", in one way or another, either out of facility, or sticktuitiveness, or some other "ethnic" traits that's best left to mere speculation. As such, Jews must have played a role in ethnic identity developments in the west, simply by being the everpresent xenoculture.-Stevert

 * In a sense, sure. Not sure if I would use the word "sticktuitiveness" (lol) but I certainly agree with what you say about the "everpresent xenoculture." That, accompanied by the Jewish roots of the Church, make for an interesting outcome.

 * BTW, thanks for the comments. They forced me to clarify my position, and that is always a good thing. Have a great night. Danny 02:11 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Some way back, someone asked if legitimate hatred of Jews was anti-Semitic, in response to the definition in the article. My response is no: if Fred and Joanne beat me up and steal my money, and Fred and Joanne happen to be Jewish, and as a result of getting mugged I hate Fred and Joanne, then that hatred is not anti-Semitic, unless I hate them in a degree that greatly exceeds my legitimate grievance at getting mugged. However, if I mis-generalise to saying that all Jews are muggers, or that all Jews in England are muggers, then I am anti-Semitic. Martin

 * Hehe :He also misstated the question: "Hatred of..." a general group.. If the question is: "is it alright to hate Fred and Joanne", then I dont see how RK can reasonably disagree with you. Although, he doesnt seem to need reason, unless he reasons one.-Stevert

 * Well, even for a general group, if a Palestinian has his house demolished by the Israeli army, and consequently hates Israeli soldiers, the Israeli politicians who order them, and the Israeli civilians who voted for those politicians, then that's not anti-Semitism, unless sie hates them in a degree that greatly exceeds hir legitimate grievance at losing hir home and all hir possessions. If sie mis-generalises to hating Israelis who are too young to vote or serve in the army, and Jews living in other countries, or people who died before the creation of the state of Israel, then that's anti-Semitism. Martin

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

title: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 5


text:
GeForce 2 series

The GeForce 2 series (NV15) is the second generation of Nvidia's GeForce line of graphics processing units (GPUs). Introduced in 2000, it is the successor to the GeForce 256.

The GeForce 2 family comprised a number of models: GeForce 2 GTS, GeForce 2 Pro, GeForce 2 Ultra, GeForce 2 Ti, GeForce 2 Go and the GeForce 2 MX series. In addition, the GeForce 2 architecture is used for the Quadro series on the Quadro 2 Pro, 2 MXR, and 2 EX cards with special drivers meant to accelerate computer-aided design applications.

Architecture
The GeForce 2 architecture is similar to the previous GeForce 256 line but with various improvements. Compared to the 220 nm GeForce 256, the GeForce 2 is built on a 180 nm manufacturing process, making the silicon more dense and allowing for more transistors and a higher clock speed. The most significant change for 3D acceleration is the addition of a second texture mapping unit to each of the four pixel pipelines. Some say the second TMU was there in the original Geforce NSR (Nvidia Shading Rasterizer) but dual-texturing was disabled due to a hardware bug; NSR's unique ability to do single-cycle trilinear texture filtering supports this suggestion. This doubles the texture fillrate per clock compared to the previous generation and is the reasoning behind the GeForce 2 GTS's naming suffix: GigaTexel Shader (GTS). The GeForce 2 also formally introduces the NSR (Nvidia Shading Rasterizer), a primitive type of programmable pixel pipeline that is somewhat similar to later pixel shaders. This functionality is also present in GeForce 256 but was unpublicized. Another hardware enhancement is an upgraded video processing pipeline, called HDVP (high definition video processor). HDVP supports motion video playback at HDTV-resolutions (MP@HL).

In 3D benchmarks and gaming applications, the GeForce 2 GTS outperforms its predecessor by up to 40%. In OpenGL games (such as Quake III), the card outperforms the ATI Radeon DDR and 3dfx Voodoo 5 5500 cards in both 16 bpp and 32 bpp display modes. However, in Direct3D games running 32 bpp, the Radeon DDR is sometimes able to take the lead.

The GeForce 2 architecture is quite memory bandwidth constrained. The GPU wastes memory bandwidth and pixel fillrate due to unoptimized z-buffer usage, drawing of hidden surfaces, and a relatively inefficient RAM controller. The main competition for GeForce 2, the ATI Radeon DDR, has hardware functions (called HyperZ) that address these issues. Because of the inefficient nature of the GeForce 2 GPUs, they could not approach their theoretical performance potential and the Radeon, even with its significantly less powerful 3D architecture, offered strong competition. The later NV17 revision of the NV11 design used in the GeForce4 MX was more efficient.

Releases
The first models to arrive after the original GeForce 2 GTS was the GeForce 2 Ultra and GeForce2 MX, launched on September 7, 2000. On September 29, 2000 Nvidia started shipping graphics cards which had 16 and 32 MB of video memory size.

Architecturally identical to the GTS, the Ultra simply has higher core and memory clock rates. The Ultra model actually outperforms the first GeForce 3 products in some cases, due to initial GeForce 3 cards having significantly lower fillrate. However, the Ultra loses its lead when anti-aliasing is enabled, because of the GeForce 3's new memory bandwidth/fillrate efficiency mechanisms; plus the GeForce 3 has a superior next-generation feature set with programmable vertex and pixel shaders for DirectX 8.0 games.

The GeForce 2 Pro, introduced shortly after the Ultra, was an alternative to the expensive top-line Ultra and is faster than the GTS.

In October 2001, the GeForce 2 Ti was positioned as a cheaper and less advanced alternative to the GeForce 3. Faster than the GTS and Pro but slower than the Ultra, the GeForce 2 Ti performed competitively against the Radeon 7500, although the 7500 had the advantage of dual-display support. This mid-range GeForce 2 release was replaced by the GeForce4 MX series as the budget/performance choice in January 2002.

On their 2001 product web page, Nvidia initially placed the Ultra as a separate offering from the rest of the GeForce 2 lineup (GTS, Pro, Ti), however by late 2002 with the GeForce 2 considered a discontinued product line, the Ultra was included along the GTS, Pro, and Ti in the GeForce 2 information page.

GeForce 2 MX
Since the previous GeForce 256 line shipped without a budget variant, the RIVA TNT2 series was left to fill the "low-end" role—albeit with a comparably obsolete feature set. In order to create a better low-end option, Nvidia created the GeForce 2 MX series, which offered a set of standard features, specific to the entire GeForce 2 generation, limited only by categorical tier. The GeForce 2 MX cards had two 3D pixel pipelines removed and a reduced available memory bandwidth. The cards utilized either SDR SDRAM or DDR SDRAM with memory bus widths ranging from 32 to 128 bits, allowing circuit board cost to be varied. The MX series also provided dual-display support, something not found in the regular GeForce 256 and GeForce 2.

The prime competitors to the GeForce 2 MX series were ATI's Radeon VE / 7000 and Radeon SDR (which with the other R100's was later renamed as part of the 7200 series). The Radeon VE had the advantage of somewhat better dual-monitor display software, but it did not offer hardware T&L, an emerging 3D rendering feature of the day that was the major attraction of Direct3D 7. Further, the Radeon VE featured only a single rendering pipeline, causing it to produce a substantially lower fillrate than the GeForce 2 MX. The Radeon SDR, equipped with SDR SDRAM instead of DDR SDRAM found in more expensive brethren, was released some time later, and exhibited faster 32-bit 3D rendering than the GeForce 2 MX. However, the Radeon SDR lacked multi-monitor support and debuted at a considerable higher price point than the GeForce 2 MX. 3dfx's Voodoo4 4500 arrived too late, as well as being too expensive, but too slow to compete with the GeForce 2 MX.

Members of the series include GeForce 2 MX, MX400, MX200, and MX100. The GPU was also used as an integrated graphics processor in the nForce chipset line and as a mobile graphics chip for notebooks called GeForce 2 Go.

Successor
The successor to the GeForce 2 (non-MX) line is the GeForce 3. The non-MX GeForce 2 line was reduced in price and saw the addition of the GeForce 2 Ti, in order to offer a mid-range alternative to the high-end GeForce 3 product.

Later, the entire GeForce 2 line was replaced with the GeForce4 MX.

Discontinued support
Nvidia has ceased driver support for GeForce 2 series, ending with GTS, Pro, Ti and Ultra models in 2005 and then with MX models in 2007.

Final drivers
GeForce 2 GTS, GeForce 2 Pro, GeForce 2 Ti and GeForce 2 Ultra:
 * Windows 9x & Windows Me: 71.84 released on March 11, 2005; Download; Product Support List Windows 95/98/Me – 71.84.
 * Windows 2000 & 32-bit Windows XP: 71.89 released on April 14, 2005; Download; Product Support List Windows XP/2000 - 71.84.
 * Linux 32-bit: 71.86.15 released on August 17, 2011; Download

GeForce 2 MX & MX x00 Series:
 * Windows 9x & Windows Me: 81.98 released on December 21, 2005; Download; Product Support List Windows 95/98/Me – 81.98.
 * Driver version 81.98 for Windows 9x/Me was the last driver version ever released by Nvidia for these systems. No new official releases were later made for these systems.
 * Windows 2000, 32-bit Windows XP & Media Center Edition: 93.71 released on November 2, 2006; Download. (Products supported list also on this page)
 * For Windows 2000, 32-bit Windows XP & Media Center Edition also available beta driver 93.81 released on November 28, 2006; ForceWare Release 90 Version 93.81 - BETA.
 * Linux 32-bit: 96.43.23 released on September 14, 2012; Download

The drivers for Windows 2000/XP may be installed on later versions of Windows such as Windows Vista and 7; however, they do not support desktop compositing or the Aero effects of these operating systems.

Windows 95/98/Me Driver Archive Windows XP/2000 Driver Archive

Competing chipsets

 * 3dfx Voodoo 5
 * ATI Radeon
 * PowerVR Series 3 (Kyro)

title: GeForce 2 series


text:
Gotthilf Hagen

Gotthilf Heinrich Ludwig Hagen (3 March 1797 – 3 February 1884) was a German civil engineer who made important contributions to fluid dynamics, hydraulic engineering and probability theory.

Life and work
Hagen was born in Königsberg, East Prussia (Kaliningrad, Russia) to Friedrich Ludwig Hagen and Helene Charlotte Albertine Hagen. His father was a government official and his mother was the daughter of Christian Reccard, professor of Theology at University of Königsberg, consistorial councillor and astronomer. He showed promise in mathematics in high school and he went on to study at the University of Königsberg where his uncle, Karl Gottfried Hagen was professor of physics and chemistry.

In 1816 Hagen began studying mathematics and astronomy with Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel, but in 1818 he switched to study civil engineering as he was more attracted to applied than theoretical science. Nevertheless, he remained in close contact with Bessel throughout his life. In 1819 he undertook the examination for surveyors (Landvermesserprüfung) and after graduating took a job as a junior engineer (Baukondukteur) in the civil service. His main responsibility was for hydraulic engineering and water management. In 1822 he took the state examination in Berlin to qualify as a master builder (Baumeister). He became known through his publications about various hydraulic constructions which he had visited during travels in Europe.

In 1824 he was appointed director of building (Baukondukteur) by the mercantile community in Königsberg and in 1825 he became deputy governmental building officer (stellvertretender Regierungs- und Baurat) for Danzig (Gdańsk). A year later he transferred to become harbor building inspector (Hafenbauinspektor) in Pillau, where he was responsible for the harbor and dyke construction. Methods he developed are still relevant to current harbor management in the region.

On 27 April 1827 he married his niece Auguste Hagen (1806–1884), with whom he had two daughters and five sons. His son Ludwig Hagen also became a notable civil engineer.

In 1830 Hagen joined the supreme building authority (Oberbaudeputation) in Berlin and became chief government building surveyor (Oberbaurat) in 1831. From 1834 to 1849 he taught as a professor of hydraulic engineering at the Bauakademie and the United Artillery and Engineering School in Berlin. Hagen was unusual in stressing the mathematical and theoretical aspects of hydraulic engineering. In particular he was interested in using probability calculus for land surveying and this interest led to his contributions to probability theory. In a letter to Bessel dated 2 August 1836 Hagen presented his hypothesis of elementary errors and deduced a Gaussian distribution for observational errors. This idea was further developed in a book published in 1837 Grundzüge der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung mit besonderer Anwendung auf die Operationen der Feldmeßkunst (“Foundations of Probability Calculus with Special Application to the Operations of Land Surveying”) which applied probability theory and least squares techniques to construction and surveying and deduced an error law that was not based on inverse probability arguments.

Hagen–Poiseuille equation
In 1839 Hagen undertook careful experiments in brass tubes that enabled him to discover the relationship between the pressure drop and the tube diameter under conditions of laminar flow of homogeneous viscous liquids. Hagen observed an empirical power law relationship between the pressure drop (ΔP) and radius (R) of a tube corresponding to ΔP ∝ 1/R−4.12, but suggested in view of possible measurement errors that a value of 4.0 be assumed. This relationship was also discovered independently at around the same time by the French physicist and physiologist Jean Poiseuille and is therefore now known as the Hagen–Poiseuille equation or Poiseuille's law.

In 1849 he was appointed as an expert adviser (Sachverständiger) to the Frankfurt National Assembly and in 1850 was appointed expert councillor (Vortragenden Rat) in the Prussian Ministry of Commerce. In 1852 Hagen published a notable paper that described and explained two fundamental aspects of granular material: saturation of pressure with depth in a confined static granular system - generally known as the Janssen effect; and the dynamics of granular flow out of a container – sometimes called the Beverloo law - the foundation of the hourglass theory.

Hagen played a decisive role in planning the development of numerous German rivers and harbors. The Prussian Admiralty appointed him to supervise the planning of Wilhelmshaven in 1855. Hagen took leave from his post in the Ministry of Trade and became chair of the Commission for the port construction in the Jade Bight. After rejecting the designs of two internationally known experts, he proposed his own design to the Prussian Admiralty on 29 May 1856. This port design met the requirements of the Prussian Admiralty but also allowed for later expansions and additions. The design was approved by cabinet order on 25 June 1856. After completion of the planning, he returned to the Prussian Ministry of Trade on 12 August 1856. The implementation of the plan was carried out in the following decade, and despite many changes, still determines the current layout of the town center.

In 1863 Hagen published his encyclopaedic manual on hydraulic engineering. This represented the state of the art for coastal protection and served for decades as the guideline for coastal engineering in Germany.

In 1866 Hagen was promoted to chief director (Oberbaudirektor) in the Department of Hydraulic Engineering and chair (Vorsitzenden) of the section of public works in the Ministry of Trade (Baudeputation).

In 1869 he was made senior national building director (Oberlandesbaudirektor). This role involved responsibility for large water and harbor works in Prussia and other German States. He held this post until his retirement in 1875.

In 1872 suffered an accident on a business trip and was unable to walk in the subsequent period. Hagen died in 1884, his tomb is located on the Invalidenfriedhof Berlin, Scharnhorststraße near the main railway station.

Honours and awards
On 7 April 1842 Hagen was elected as a member of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, Berlin on the recommendation of Alexander von Humboldt. In 1843 Hagen received an honorary doctorate from the University of Bonn. In 1881 he was made a Freeman of Pillau On 2 May 1883 he was awarded a gold medal for extraordinary services to the construction industry.

Monuments and memorials
After his death a monument to Hagen was built in Pillau. The monument is currently in Baltijsk and is now maintained by the Russian Navy. Gotthilf Hagen square was inaugurated in Wilhelmshaven in 2007. A sculpture in honor of Gotthilf Hagen was placed in the square. It was created by the artist Hartmut Wiesner. In 1959 a pilot station ship, the "Gotthilf Hagen" was named after him

Publications

 * Beschreibung neuerer Wasserbauwerke in Deutschland, Frankreich, den Niederlanden und der Schweiz 1826
 * Untersuchungen über den Druck und die Reibung des Sandes 1833
 * Grundzüge der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung (published in 3 Editions) 1837
 * Über die Bewegung des Wassers in engen zylindrischen Röhren 1839
 * Handbuch der Wasserbaukunst (3 Parts) 1841-1863
 * Über die Oberfläche der Flüssigkeiten 1845
 * Über den Einfluß der Temperatur auf die Bewegung des Wassers in Röhren 1854
 * Über Flut und Ebbe in der Ostsee 1857
 * Zur Theorie der Meereswellen 1859
 * Die neueren Theorien der Bewegung des strömenden Wassers. Über die Bewegung des Wassers in Strömen 1868
 * Über den Seitendruck der Erde 1871
 * Geschwindigkeit des strömenden Wassers in verschiedenen Tiefen 1883

title: Gotthilf Hagen


text:
Pamela Colman Smith

Pamela Colman Smith (16 February 1878 – 18 September 1951), nicknamed "Pixie", was a British artist, illustrator, writer, publisher, and occultist. She is best-known for illustrating the Rider–Waite tarot deck (also called the Rider–Waite–Smith or Waite–Smith deck) for Arthur Edward Waite. This tarot deck became the standard among tarot card readers, and remains the most widely used today. Smith also illustrated over 20 books, wrote two collections of Jamaican folklore, edited two magazines, and ran the Green Sheaf Press, a small press focused on women writers.

Biography
Smith was born at 28 Belgrave Road in Pimlico, part of central London. She was the only child of a merchant from Brooklyn, New York (before it was part of New York City), Charles Edward Smith (son of Brooklyn mayor Cyrus Porter Smith), and his wife Corinne Colman (sister of the painter Samuel Colman). The family was based in Manchester for the first decade of Smith's life, but they moved to Jamaica when Charles Smith took a job in 1889 with the West India Improvement Company (a financial syndicate involved in extending the Jamaican railroad system). The Smiths lived in the capital, Kingston, for several years, traveling to London and New York. By 1893, Smith had moved to Brooklyn, where, at the age of 15, she enrolled at the Pratt Institute, which had been founded six years earlier. There she studied art under Arthur Wesley Dow, painter, print maker, photographer, and influential arts educator. Her mature drawing style shows clear traces of the visionary qualities of fin-de-siècle Symbolism and the Romanticism of the preceding Arts and Crafts movement. While Smith was in art school, her mother died in Jamaica, in 1896. Smith herself was ill on and off during these years and in the end left Pratt in 1897 without a degree. She became an illustrator; some of her first projects included The Illustrated Verses of William Butler Yeats, a book on actress Dame Ellen Terry by Bram Stoker, and two of her own books, Widdicombe Fair and Fair Vanity (a reference to Vanity Fair).

In 1899 her father died, leaving Smith orphaned at the age of 21. She returned to England that year, continuing to work as an illustrator, and branching out into theatrical design for a miniature theatre. In London, she was taken under the wing of the Lyceum Theatre group led by Terry (who is said to have given her the nickname 'Pixie'), Henry Irving, and Bram Stoker and traveled with them around the country, working on costumes and stage design.

In 1901, she established a studio in London and held a weekly open house for artists, authors, actors, and others involved with the arts. Arthur Ransome, then in his early 20s, describes one of these "at home" evenings, and the curious artistic circle around Smith, in his 1907 Bohemia in London. Smith wrote and illustrated two books about Jamaican folklore: Annancy Stories (1899) and Chim-Chim, Folk Stories from Jamaica (1905). These books included Jamaican versions of tales involving the traditional African folk figure Anansi the Spider. She also continued her illustration work, taking on projects for William Butler Yeats and his brother, the painter Jack Yeats. She illustrated Bram Stoker's last novel, The Lair of the White Worm in 1911, and Ellen Terry's book on Diaghilev's Ballets Russes, The Russian Ballet in 1913.

Smith supported the struggle for the right to vote, and through the Suffrage Atelier, a collective of professional illustrators, she contributed artwork to further the cause of women's suffrage in Great Britain. Additionally, Smith donated her services for more poster designs and toys to the Red Cross during World War I.

In 1903, Smith launched her own magazine under the title The Green Sheaf, with contributions by Yeats, Christopher St John (Christabel Marshall), Cecil French, A. E. (George William Russell), Gordon Craig (Ellen Terry's son), John Todhunter, and others. The Green Sheaf survived for a little over a year, a total of 13 issues.

Discouraged by The Green Sheaf's lack of financial success, Smith shifted her efforts towards setting up a small press in London. In 1904, she established The Green Sheaf Press which published a variety of novels, poems, fairy tales, and folktales until at least 1906, mostly by women writers.

In 1907, Alfred Stieglitz gave an exhibition of Smith's paintings in New York at his Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession (also known as gallery 291), making Smith the first painter to have a show at what had been until then a gallery devoted exclusively to the photographic avant-garde. Stieglitz was intrigued by Smith's synaesthetic sensibility; in this period, Smith would paint visions that came to her while listening to music. The show was successful enough that Stieglitz issued a platinum print portfolio of 22 of her paintings and showed her work twice more, in 1908 and 1909. Some Smith works that did not sell remained with Stieglitz and ended up in the Stieglitz/Georgia O'Keeffe Archive at Yale University.

Yeats introduced Smith to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, which she joined in 1901 and in the process met Waite. When the Golden Dawn splintered due to personality conflicts, Smith moved with Waite to the Independent and Rectified Rite of the Golden Dawn (or Holy Order of the Golden Dawn). In 1909, Waite commissioned Smith to produce a tarot deck with appeal to the world of art, and the result was the unique Waite–Smith tarot deck. Published by William Rider & Son of London, it has endured as the world's most popular 78-card tarot deck. The innovative cards depict full scenes with figures and symbols on all of the cards including the pips, and Smith's distinctive drawings have become the basis for the design of many subsequent packs.

Apart from book illustration projects and the tarot deck, her art found little in the way of commercial outlets after her early success with Stieglitz in New York. Several examples of her works done in gouache were collected by her cousin, the American Sherlock Holmes actor William Gillette, and may be found today prominently displayed in his castle in Connecticut.

In 1911, Smith converted to Roman Catholicism. After the end of the First World War, Smith received an inheritance from an uncle that enabled her to lease a house on the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall, an area popular with artists. For income, she established a holiday home for Catholic priests in a neighbouring house. Her longtime friend, Nora Lake, joined her in Cornwall and helped to run the vacation home.

After several years of financial difficulty, Smith left the Lizard and relocated first to Exeter in 1939, and then to Bude in the early 1940s. Although she continued writing and illustrating, she was unable to find publishers for her work, probably due to changes in public taste following the First World War.

Smith died in her apartment at the Bencoolen House in Bude on 18 September 1951. Her possessions were auctioned off to pay her debts. The location of her gravesite is unknown, but it is likely that she was buried in an unmarked grave in St. Michael's Cemetery in Bude.

Waite–Smith Tarot
The 78 illustrations that make up the Waite–Smith tarot deck "represent archetypal subjects that each become a portal to an invisible realm of signs and symbols, believed to be channeled through processes of divination." They are original works of art and unique in terms of the cards' stylization, draftsmanship, and composition, which is a significant aesthetic achievement. They are one of the best examples of Smith's imagination for fantasy, folly, ecstasy, death, and the macabre.

The deck bearing Smith's illustrations, first published in England by Rider in December 1909, were simply labeled Tarot Cards and accompanied by The Key to the Tarot guide by Arthur Edward Waite. His guide was updated the following year with Smith's black-and-white drawings, and republished as The Pictorial Key to the Tarot.

U.S. Games acquired the rights to publish the deck in 1971, released variously as The Rider Tarot Deck, simply Rider Tarot, and Rider Waite Tarot. (Based on differences in U.S. and U.K. copyright law, the extent of their copyright in the Waite–Smith deck is disputed.) Recent scholars, recognizing the central importance of Smith's contribution, often refer to the deck as the Waite–Smith Tarot, while others prefer the abbreviation RWS, for Rider–Waite–Smith.

In the century since the deck's first printing, there have been dozens of editions put out by various publishers; for some of these the Smith drawings were redrawn by other artists, and for others the cards were rephotographed to create new printing plates. Many versions have been recolored as the coloration is rather harsh in the original deck, due to the limitations of color printing at the time. One example is the 1968 Albano-Waite tarot, which has brighter colors overlaid on the same pen-and-ink drawings. Some recent U.S. Games editions have removed Smith's hand-drawn titles for each card, substituting text in a standard typeface. Altogether, these decks encompass the full range from editions very closely based on the original printings to decks that can at most be termed 'inspired' by the Waite–Smith deck.

Waite is often cited as the designer of the Waite–Smith Tarot, but it would be more accurate to consider him as half of a design team, with responsibility for the major concepts, the structure of individual cards, and the overall symbolic system. Because Waite was not an artist himself, he commissioned Smith to create the actual deck.

It is likely that Smith worked from Waite's written and verbal instructions rather than from sketches; that is, from detailed descriptions of the desired designs. This is how illustrators often work, and as a commercial illustrator, Smith would probably have been comfortable with such a working process. It appears that Waite provided detailed instructions mainly or exclusively for the Major Arcana, and simple lists of meanings for the Minor Arcana or 'pip' cards. Thus the memorable scenes of the Minor Arcana owe largely to Smith's own invention. The Minor Arcana are indeed one of the notable achievements of this deck, as most earlier tarot decks (especially those of the Marseilles type) have extremely simple pip cards. Smith's innovative illustrations for the Minor Arcana, with their rich symbolism, made the Waite–Smith deck a widely imitated model for other tarot decks.

Smith and Waite drew on a number of sources as inspirations for the deck's designs. In particular, it appears that Waite took his inspiration for the trumps mainly from the French Tarot of Marseilles (although the oldest date from the 16th century, his model was possibly a Marseilles deck from the 18th century). It is not unlikely that other Marseilles-type Italian tarot decks from the 18th or 19th century were used as additional models. For the pips, it appears that Smith drew mainly on the 15th century Italian Sola Busca tarot; the 3 of Swords, for example, clearly shows the congruity between the two decks. In addition, there is evidence that some figures in the deck are portraits of Smith's friends, notably actresses Ellen Terry (the Queen of Wands) and Florence Farr (the World).

Smith completed the art for the deck in the six months between April and October 1909. This is a short period of time for an artist to complete some 80 pictures (the number claimed by Smith in a letter to Stieglitz in 1909 and corresponding almost exactly to the standard 78-card tarot deck). The illustrations were most likely done in pen and ink, possibly over a pencil underdrawing; the original drawings are lost so this cannot be determined with certainty at present. They were either colored with watercolor by Smith or colored by someone else after the fact.

Posthumous exhibitions
The exhibition To All Believers—The Art of Pamela Colman Smith was held in the United States in 1975, sponsored by the University of Delaware and the Delaware Art Museum in association with the Delaware chapter of The Victorian Society in America. The exhibition was held at the Delaware Art Museum from 11 September to 19 October, and at the Art Museum, Princeton University, from 4 November to 7 December.

An exhibition, Georgia O'Keeffe and the Women of the Stieglitz Circle, was held in 2007–2008. It was at three museums: the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe, New Mexico; the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, Georgia; and the San Diego Museum of Art in San Diego, California. The exhibition included works by Smith and other women artists who were active in the art and photography scene prior to O'Keeffe. Their works help to put O'Keeffe's art in the context of the time. The exhibition was based on the scholarly book Modernism and the Feminine Voice: O'Keeffe and the Women of the Stieglitz Circle by Kathleen Pyne, which contains a chapter on Smith.

The Brooklyn Campus of the Pratt Institute Libraries mounted the exhibition Pamela Colman Smith: Life and Work in 2019, including books, prints, reproductions of paintings and illustrations, tarot decks, and photographs.

Academic study
In 2022, Smith's life and work became the subjects of The Queen of Wands: The Story of Pamela Colman Smith, the Artist Behind the Rider-Waite Tarot Deck, an illustrated biography by Cat Willett.

title: Pamela Colman Smith


text:
Dirichlet convolution

In mathematics, the Dirichlet convolution (or divisor convolution) is a binary operation defined for arithmetic functions; it is important in number theory. It was developed by Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet.

Definition
If $$f, g : \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{C}$$ are two arithmetic functions from the positive integers to the complex numbers, the Dirichlet convolution f ∗ g is a new arithmetic function defined by:

(f*g)(n) \ =\ \sum_{d\,\mid \,n} f(d)\,g\!\left(\frac{n}{d}\right) \ =\ \sum_{ab\,=\,n}\!f(a)\,g(b) $$

where the sum extends over all positive divisors d of n, or equivalently over all distinct pairs (a, b) of positive integers whose product is n.

This product occurs naturally in the study of Dirichlet series such as the Riemann zeta function. It describes the multiplication of two Dirichlet series in terms of their coefficients:
 * $$\left(\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{f(n)}{n^s}\right)

\left(\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{g(n)}{n^s}\right) \ = \ \left(\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{(f*g)(n)}{n^s}\right). $$

Properties
The set of arithmetic functions forms a commutative ring, the , under pointwise addition, where f + g is defined by (f + g)(n) = f(n) + g(n), and Dirichlet convolution. The multiplicative identity is the unit function ε defined by ε(n) = 1 if n = 1 and ε(n) = 0 if n > 1. The units (invertible elements) of this ring are the arithmetic functions f with f(1) ≠ 0.

Specifically, Dirichlet convolution is associative,
 * $$(f * g) * h = f * (g * h),$$

distributive over addition
 * $$f * (g + h) = f * g + f * h$$,

commutative,
 * $$f * g = g * f$$,

and has an identity element,
 * $$f * \varepsilon$$ = $$\varepsilon * f = f$$.

Furthermore, for each $$f$$ having $$f(1) \neq 0$$, there exists an arithmetic function $$f^{-1}$$ with $$f * f^{-1} = \varepsilon$$, called the  of $$f$$.

The Dirichlet convolution of two multiplicative functions is again multiplicative, and every not constantly zero multiplicative function has a Dirichlet inverse which is also multiplicative. In other words, multiplicative functions form a subgroup of the group of invertible elements of the Dirichlet ring. Beware however that the sum of two multiplicative functions is not multiplicative (since $$(f+g)(1)=f(1)+g(1)=2 \neq 1$$), so the subset of multiplicative functions is not a subring of the Dirichlet ring. The article on multiplicative functions lists several convolution relations among important multiplicative functions.

Another operation on arithmetic functions is pointwise multiplication: fg is defined by (fg)(n) = f(n) g(n). Given a completely multiplicative function $$h$$, pointwise multiplication by $$h$$ distributes over Dirichlet convolution: $$(f * g)h = (fh) * (gh)$$. The convolution of two completely multiplicative functions is multiplicative, but not necessarily completely multiplicative.

Properties and Examples
In these formulas, we use the following arithmetical functions:
 * $$\varepsilon$$ is the multiplicative identity: $$\varepsilon(1) = 1$$, otherwise 0 ($$\varepsilon(n)=\lfloor \tfrac1n \rfloor$$).
 * $$1$$ is the constant function with value 1: $$1(n) = 1$$ for all $$n$$. Keep in mind that $$1$$ is not the identity. (Some authors denote this as $$\zeta$$ because the associated Dirichlet series is the Riemann zeta function.)
 * $$1_C$$ for $$C \subset \mathbb{N}$$ is a set indicator function: $$1_C(n) = 1$$ iff $$n \in C$$, otherwise 0.
 * $$\text{Id}$$ is the identity function with value n: $$\text{Id}(n) = n$$.
 * $$\text{Id}_k$$is the kth power function: $$\text{Id}_k(n)=n^k$$.

The following relations hold:

 * $$1 * \mu = \varepsilon$$, the Dirichlet inverse of the constant function $$1$$ is the Möbius function (see proof). Hence:
 * $$g = f * 1$$ if and only if  $$f = g * \mu$$, the Möbius inversion formula
 * $$\sigma_k = \text{Id}_k * 1$$, the kth-power-of-divisors sum function σk
 * $$\sigma = \text{Id} * 1$$, the sum-of-divisors function σ = σ1
 * $$\tau = 1 * 1$$, the number-of-divisors function τ(n) = σ0
 * $$\text{Id}_k = \sigma_k * \mu$$, by Möbius inversion of the formulas for σk, σ, and τ
 * $$\text{Id} = \sigma * \mu$$
 * $$1 = \tau * \mu$$
 * $$\phi * 1 = \text{Id}$$, proved under Euler's totient function
 * $$\phi = \text{Id} * \mu$$, by Möbius inversion
 * $$\sigma = \phi * \tau$$, from convolving 1 on both sides of $$\phi * 1 = \text{Id}$$
 * $$\lambda * |\mu| = \varepsilon$$ where λ is Liouville's function
 * $$\lambda * 1 = 1_{\text{Sq}}$$ where Sq = {1, 4, 9, ...} is the set of squares
 * $$\text{Id}_k * (\text{Id}_k \mu) = \varepsilon $$
 * $$\tau^3 * 1 = (\tau * 1)^2$$
 * $$J_k * 1 = \text{Id}_k$$, Jordan's totient function
 * $$(\text{Id}_s J_r) * J_s = J_{s + r} $$
 * $$\Lambda * 1 = \log$$, where $$\Lambda$$ is von Mangoldt's function
 * $$|\mu| \ast 1 = 2^{\omega},$$ where $$\omega(n)$$ is the prime omega function counting distinct prime factors of n
 * $$\Omega \ast \mu = 1_{\mathcal{P}}$$, the characteristic function of the prime powers.
 * $$\omega \ast \mu = 1_{\mathbb{P}}$$ where $$1_{\mathbb{P}}(n) \mapsto \{0,1\}$$ is the characteristic function of the primes.

This last identity shows that the prime-counting function is given by the summatory function

 * $$\pi(x) = \sum_{n \leq x} (\omega \ast \mu)(n) = \sum_{d=1}^{x} \omega(d) M\left(\left\lfloor \frac{x}{d} \right\rfloor\right)$$

where $$M(x)$$ is the Mertens function and $$\omega$$ is the distinct prime factor counting function from above. This expansion follows from the identity for the sums over Dirichlet convolutions given on the divisor sum identities page (a standard trick for these sums).

Examples
Given an arithmetic function $$f$$ its Dirichlet inverse $$g = f^{-1} $$ may be calculated recursively: the value of $$g(n) $$ is in terms of $$g(m)$$ for $$m<n$$.

For $$n=1$$:
 * $$(f * g) (1) = f(1) g(1) = \varepsilon(1) = 1 $$, so
 * $$g(1) = 1/f(1)$$. This implies that $$f$$ does not have a Dirichlet inverse if $$f(1) = 0$$.

For $$n=2$$:
 * $$(f * g) (2) = f(1) g(2) + f(2) g(1) = \varepsilon(2) = 0$$,
 * $$g(2) = -(f(2) g(1))/f(1) $$,

For $$n=3$$:
 * $$(f * g) (3) = f(1) g(3) + f(3) g(1) = \varepsilon(3) = 0$$,
 * $$g(3) = -(f(3) g(1))/f(1) $$,

For $$n=4$$:
 * $$(f * g) (4) = f(1) g(4) + f(2) g(2) + f(4) g(1) = \varepsilon(4) = 0$$,
 * $$g(4) = -(f(4) g(1) + f(2) g(2))/f(1) $$,

and in general for $$n>1$$,

g(n) \ =\ \frac {-1}{f(1)} \mathop{\sum_{d\,\mid \,n}}_{d < n} f\left(\frac{n}{d}\right) g(d). $$

Properties
The following properties of the Dirichlet inverse hold:

 * The function f has a Dirichlet inverse if and only if f(1) ≠ 0.
 * The Dirichlet inverse of a multiplicative function is again multiplicative.
 * The Dirichlet inverse of a Dirichlet convolution is the convolution of the inverses of each function: $$(f \ast g)^{-1} = f^{-1} \ast g^{-1}$$.
 * A multiplicative function f is completely multiplicative if and only if $$f^{-1}(n) = \mu(n) f(n)$$.
 * If f is completely multiplicative then $$(f \cdot g)^{-1} = f \cdot g^{-1}$$ whenever $$g(1) \neq 0$$ and where $$\cdot$$ denotes pointwise multiplication of functions.

Other formulas
An exact, non-recursive formula for the Dirichlet inverse of any arithmetic function f is given in Divisor sum identities. A more partition theoretic expression for the Dirichlet inverse of f is given by

 * $$f^{-1}(n) = \sum_{k=1}^{\Omega(n)} \left\{

\sum_{{\lambda_1+2\lambda_2+\cdots+k\lambda_k=n} \atop {\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_k | n}} \frac{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\cdots+\lambda_k)!}{1! 2! \cdots k!} (-1)^k f(\lambda_1) f(\lambda_2)^2 \cdots f(\lambda_k)^k\right\}.$$ The following formula provides a compact way of expressing the Dirichlet inverse of an invertible arithmetic function f :

$$f^{-1}=\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{(f(1)\varepsilon-f)^{*k}}{f(1)^{k+1}}$$

where the expression $$(f(1)\varepsilon-f)^{*k}$$ stands for the arithmetic function $$f(1)\varepsilon-f$$ convoluted with itself k times. Notice that, for a fixed positive integer $$n$$, if $$k>\Omega(n)$$ then $$(f(1)\varepsilon-f)^{*k}(n)=0$$, this is because $$f(1)\varepsilon(1) - f(1) = 0$$ and every way of expressing n as a product of k positive integers must include a 1, so the series on the right hand side converges for every fixed positive integer n.

Dirichlet series
If f is an arithmetic function, the Dirichlet series generating function is defined by

DG(f;s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{f(n)}{n^s} $$

for those complex arguments s for which the series converges (if there are any). The multiplication of Dirichlet series is compatible with Dirichlet convolution in the following sense:

DG(f;s) DG(g;s) = DG(f*g;s)\, $$

for all s for which both series of the left hand side converge, one of them at least converging absolutely (note that simple convergence of both series of the left hand side does not imply convergence of the right hand side!). This is akin to the convolution theorem if one thinks of Dirichlet series as a Fourier transform.

Related concepts
The restriction of the divisors in the convolution to unitary, bi-unitary or infinitary divisors defines similar commutative operations which share many features with the Dirichlet convolution (existence of a Möbius inversion, persistence of multiplicativity, definitions of totients, Euler-type product formulas over associated primes, etc.).

Dirichlet convolution is a special case of the convolution multiplication for the incidence algebra of a poset, in this case the poset of positive integers ordered by divisibility.

title: Dirichlet convolution


text:
Arthur Waite

Arthur Waite may refer to:
 * A. E. Waite (Arthur Edward Waite, 1857–1942), scholarly mystic
 * Arthur Waite (racing driver) (1894–1991), Australian racing driver

title: Arthur Waite


text:
Talk:Terrance and Phillip

Wayne and Schuster
Why is there a "see also" for Wayne and Schuster?

I have a hard time understanding why this article belongs here. If it does, it should be merged into the South Park page, IMHO. matt 17:18 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've added a couple of sentences on the function of the show-within-a-show to try and give the article a bit more credibility. Kinitawowi 15:36, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Fiction or reality?
I believe there's a problem with the following passage:

 * The United States did not seek a UN resolution to invade Canadian territory, nor did it have a proper case of war citing self-defense.
 * The Canadians were victims of American racial discrimination for which the United States did not even make a case of just war.

It would appear that someone decided to protest against war in Irak by seizing the apparent similarities between the movie's plot and the current situation in Irak. The text seems a bit off-key and somewhat confrontational, and it also contributes very little to the understanding of the movie, since it brings in levels of complexity that are simply not part of the plot. As the South Park article on the movie correctly states, it's about parent's unwillingness to take responsibility for their children and the amazing links to which they are prepared to go to avoid facing it; not international politics and even less about the hard line U.S. government (which wasn't even in power when the movie was made, might I add).

Redux 21:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Just adding my wholehearted agreement to that; in addition to the top-most point querying why this article exists at all and hasn't been merged into the main South Park article, a quick look through the edit history implies that the sole purpose of this article is as a troll to spout a rant against Iraq. In addition, the article is factually incorrect; The war was terminated when Satan and his consort Saddam made their appearance from Hell, awakening the two nations to their purposeless violence against each other. is nothing but inaccurate, pointless rhetoric; the war was effectively brought to an end by Kyle's speech to his mother, at which point she was the only one left fighting it.

 * But I digress. The article as it stands should probably be merged with the South Park article, or the South Park movie article at the very least.

 * Kinitawowi 14:38, 02 Aug 2004 (BST)

Canadians
"virtually all Canadians" have funny heads? I've never noticed an exception (being one, I look pretty carefully). It makes me anxious to see how they pretend to be Canadian when they go to Afghanistan (here) 142.177.23.198 16:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 'k, just by the funny pronunciation, like that was gonna work. But there's an underlying something...
 * Saddam Hussein is presented as Canadian - not just the flapping head, as other characters with photo heads have had, but the rest of him is geometric and he's been heard saying that silly "aboot". In one episode he's ethe new Prime Minister. And when Jesus 'n' the boys go to rescue Santa from the Iraqis, a map of Canada appears on the sleigh's controls.
 * Why are they trying to equate Canada and Iraq? (I realise this isn't T&P but T&P is the most Canada-oriented SP page I know of...) Kwantus 02:59, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

 * The episode Fat Camp features Tom Green, a Canadian, but he doesn't have the flappy head.

I agree with the earlier comments by Redux and Kinitawowi. The movie made no reference to UN resolutions, radical discrimination, or just wars. Also the war was ended by Kyle's speech, not saddam and satan. I am removing the passages in question. DaveTheRed 07:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for introducing Terrance and Phillip
In my opinion Terrance and Phillip were introduced to the South Park universe when big debates were on in real life about South Park being a production that is just about fart jokes and foul language. Terrance and Phillip serve as an reflection on South Park itself, carrying reproaches to an extreme. Also, TP's animations are even worse than that of South Park.

I would be nice if someone comments on my claim and adds it to the article in case of it is true. Thanks, --Abdull 16:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I added a reference to the following quote by Trey: "Terrance and Phillip to us is us making fun of what the critics say South Park is. You know, because when we read these articles that say South Park is wall-to-wall fart jokes, that's all it is, it's like, no, here's wall-to-wall fart jokes." --Petko 15:20, 04 May 2007 (UTC)

tps or gst
when terrance phillip and scott are together on the screen in the not whitout my anus episode. it does TPS wich is taxes pour produit et services or in english it means  Goods and services tax (GST).

the history of Terrance and Phillip should be included. they were introduced as a prank (April Fool's?). there was a cliffhanger episode where the identity of Cartman's father would be revealed in the "to be continued" episode. instead of the Cartman's father episode, an entire Terrence and Phillip episode was shown instead. comedy central received a lot of hate email about it, and aired the Cartman's father episode the following week.

Cartoon Wars II
In last night's episode, one of the boys (Not sure which one it was, but they were wearing the red shirt) was much fatter than usual.

ee

O rly?
""Here" and "There" are sometimes changed to "Heeya" and "Theya"." Never in my travels aboot the nation have I heard a Canadian Say that. That is a feature of the Bristish accent. It is actually more prevalent in Sothern Americans. (not south americans) ...also cox. ..

 * In reply to your message above, Canadians on South Park are always saying "aboot". Watch the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut to see.
 * Mr. Garrison 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Terrance
Is it correct that Terrance was born as Terrence Henry Stoot, as the article currently says. Is the change in spelling of Terrance a typo? There are no sources so I can't check myself. Hobson 01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As nobody seems to be able to confirm the information was correct, and it seems unlikely to me, and there were no references that could have confirmed it, I have removed it. Hobson 10:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How they look
My friend told me that the reason Terrance and Philip look the way they do is because that's how Canadian cartoons look. Can someone confirm this? If so, which cartoon is it? ForestAngel (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Terrance and Phillip