text:
Writers Guild of America

The Writers Guild of America (WGA) is the generic term of two different American labor unions, representing writers in film, television, radio, and online media:
 * The Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE), headquartered in New York City and affiliated with the AFL-CIO national trade union center
 * The Writers Guild of America West (WGAW), headquartered in Los Angeles but unaffiliated.

Although each organization operates independently, they perform some common activities, including negotiating contracts and launching strike actions in unison.

Background and founding

Both organizations of the Writers Guild of America were established by 1954 after the merging of groups from other writers labor unions. The Authors Guild (AG) was originally founded in 1912 as the Authors' League of America (ALA) to represent book and magazine authors, as well as dramatists. In 1921, the Dramatists Guild of America split off as a separate group to represent writers of stage and, later, radio drama. That same year, the Screen Writers Guild (SWG) was formed to represent film screenwriters, but operated primarily more as a social organization until 1933 when the group affiliated with the AG and took on a more active role in labor negotiations. With the emergence of the television industry by 1948, the SWG and a Television Writers Group within the AG began to represent TV writers. In recognition of the growing complexity of representing members in many different fields of entertainment writing, these unions reorganized in 1954: both the Authors Guild and the Dramatists Guild would continue to represent writers in print media, the SWG would fold, and those working in motion pictures, TV and radio would be represented by two new guilds headquartered on each coast, WGAE and WGAW.

Common activities
Although the WGAE and WGAW run independently of each other, they jointly perform some regular activities, including the following:

 * The Writers Guild of America Awards are presented annually by both guilds in recognition of excellence in film, television, and radio writing, including both fiction and non-fiction. The 1st Writers Guild of America Awards were held in 1949 to honor the best film writers of 1948. The annual awards show includes simultaneous presentations on each coast.
 * The WGA screenwriting credit system is used to determine who receives credit for writing a film, television, theatrical, or other media work written under the WGA's jurisdiction. The guilds are the final arbiters on who and how writers are listed in the credits.
 * The WGA script registration service is run by both guilds to establish the date of creation of literary property.
 * Both guilds are members of the International Affiliation of Writers Guilds.

Strikes

The WGAE and WGAW negotiate contracts in unison as well as launch strike actions simultaneously.

 * The 1960 Writers Guild of America strike lasted for 22 weeks. The negotiated contract included the first residuals for theatrical films, and the improved pensions.
 * The 1981 Writers Guild of America strike lasted for 13 weeks. The negotiated contract included establishing payment terms for "pay TV" cable programs.
 * The 1985 Writers Guild of America strike lasted two weeks. At dispute was the formula for paying home video residuals.
 * The 1988 Writers Guild of America strike lasted from March 7 to August 7, 1988. Among the disputes were residuals from syndicated reruns of hour-long shows.
 * The 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike lasted from November 5, 2007, to February 12, 2008. Among the disputes were residuals from content made for new media and programs on DVD. The production of several television shows were affected by the strike.
 * The 2023 Writers Guild of America strike lasted from May 2 to September 27, 2023. Among the disputes were residuals from the use of AI and streaming media. Many productions were impacted by the strike.

title: Writers Guild of America


text:
Lady Macbeth (disambiguation)

Lady Macbeth is a character from William Shakespeare's play Macbeth.

Lady Macbeth may also refer to:
 * Lady Macbeth (historical) or Queen Gruoch of Scotland
 * Lady Macbeth (album), a 2005 album by Lana Lane
 * Lady Macbeth (sculpture), a sculpture by Elisabet Ney
 * Lady MacBeth (spaceship), a fictional spaceship in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy
 * Lady Macbeth, a 2008 novel by Susan King

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

title: Lady Macbeth (disambiguation)


text:
Battle of Lumphanan

The Battle of Lumphanan was fought on 15 August 1057, between Macbeth, King of Scots, and the future King Malcolm III. Macbeth would die from wounds sustained in the battle, which came after his defeat at the battle of Dunsinane in 1054. According to tradition, the battle took place at Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire. Macbeth's Stone, a large boulder at the site, is said to mark the spot where Macbeth was mortally wounded. Following the battle Lulach, Macbeth's stepson was crowned King, before being killed by Malcolm who then took the throne.

Background
Since the death of his father, King Duncan, in battle with Macbeth, Malcolm had been sheltered by Earl Siward of Northumbria, his uncle. It was with Siward's backing that Malcolm first attacked Macbeth leading to the battle of Dunsinane in 1054, where Malcolm failed to win the crown, but had his own lands restored to him. Some sources say it was Edward the Confessor, King of England, who ordered Siward to launch this invasion of Scotland.

The battle
After retreating North, Macbeth would again face Malcolm in battle at Lumphanan, in modern day Aberdeenshire. The battle itself appears to have been a comparatively minor affair, except for Macbeth being mortally wounded and later dying. Sources describe the battle as taking place "in a wood".

Macbeth's Stone, a large boulder at the site, is traditionally held to mark the location where Macbeth was wounded.

Aftermath
Following the death of Macbeth, his stepson Lulach was initially crowned king. 18 weeks later, in 1058 Malcolm killed him by 'treachery' at Essie, near Aberdeen. Upon assuming the throne, Malcolm, with the help of his English queen, Margaret, began the long task of removing Gaelic culture from mainstream Scotland.

title: Battle of Lumphanan


text:
Talk:Isomorphism

Near Useless Introduction (Jan 2020)
I don't usually stop to make Talk section comments on articles, but this has got to be one of the worst written intros I've ever read on this site. I understand that Wikipedia is meant to be comprehensive, but the level of technical vocabulary and field expertise needed to make sense of the intro is ridiculous. Every term in the intro is defined by another technical synonym or antonym, themselves almost circularly defined using the term "isomorphism". So not only do you not know what isomorphism means, you can't figure it out without understanding it's opposite and equivalents. Decoding this mess is like solving a simultaneous algebraic equation.

The intro thus becomes incomprehensible to anyone but experts, and experts are the last people who benefit from Wikipedia articles. What's the point of an article that a layman has to study to understand? You don't even need to dumb down the content, there are really good incremental intros on chemistry and quantum physics pages that gradually ramp up in complexity to create a comprehensive article. A non expert usually delves a good way into the page before losing understanding. I've timestamped this comment because it appears this article has been haplessly confusing for near a decade without improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:C2:13A9:D9B4:BB43:8AE6:1563 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I was getting all set to give the usual defensive response but in fact the intro really is terrible. --JBL (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree. This intro seems to be an exemplar of the maxim of why you should never allow a category theorist to write an introduction. When (not if) we get around to fixing this intro, I am sure that there will be some objections along the line that category theory is the right mathematical setting for this topic. I agree with that statement, but it is not germane to the right way to present the topic in an encyclopedic setting. I've been thinking about how to fix this without ruffling too many feathers, but have not yet come up with a satisfactory solution. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have written a new version. I am quite sure that it is not worse than the preceding one, and that it is easier to improve further. Please, feel free to edit it.

Also, most of the article would require to be rewritten in the same spirit. D.Lazard (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, D.Lazard, your edits were an enormous improvement. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 * As part of the rewrite, the definition of canonical isomorphism seems to have changed. In the current version, "canonical" seems to synonymous with "unique".  After some searching, I have not been able to locate a place where canonical is defined in this way, but I am not an expert.  Perhaps a reference would help? Will Orrick (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to find a reference, as "canonical" is jargon that is rarely explicitly defined. I have clarified the sentence, and added an example where there is no uniqueness.
 * IMO, when one says that an isomorphism is canonical, there is always some kind of uniqueness. For example, in the case of the group isomophism between $$A/\ker(f)$$ and $$\operatorname{im}(f)$$ there may be many isomorphisms between the two groups, but there is only one that is compatible with the the (canonical) homorphisms from $$A$$ to these groups. More precisely there is a unique isomorphism between the pairs $$(B, A\to B)$$ formed by a group and an homomorphism from $$A$$ to this group.
 * This can surely be sourced in some books of category theory, but I am unable to explain it here at the right level of technicality. So, I have left an imprecise formulation.D.Lazard (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. The new wording gives a clearer picture of how the term seems to be used in practice. Will Orrick (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Categorical view
It was me that just updated the "categorical" section. I agree about too many words to describe simple things. An isomorphism is an invertible morphism, that's it. Vlad Patryshev (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Surjective bijective
Surjective & bijective thus Isomorphic ? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See . D.Lazard (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 * In set theory an isomorphism between posets explicitly is required to translate the comparison of inputs and outputs, i.e. for isomorphism f:(X,≤X)→(Y,≤Y) we have a≤Xb implies f(a)≤Yf(b). Should more precise conditions for being an isomorphism like this one be listed in this article? C7XWiki (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? Order isomorphisms between posets are explicitly mentioned in the section Isomorphism, for example. JBL (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Isomorphism
Replace 108 by 144 Len loker (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Where? D.Lazard (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Equality versus Isomorphism
I removed some of the misleading or confused parts of the equality versus isomorphism part. For instance the discussion of natural isomorphism was confusing as it made it seem as if whether an isomorphism was natural or not was somehow a feature of only the two structures and was the suggestion that category theory doesn't produce equal objects (it's a less useful notion but it exists in some formalizations).

However, I suggest cutting more or almost everything to just include a brief paragraph about this point. If one wants to go into this level of detail perhaps a new page where one can give the appropriate context (are we talking about this from a foundations of math perspective, working mathematican's perspective a philosophical perspective) which isn't very clear. I'm not ready to just do this without more feedback as someone obviously put a lot of effort into this and I don't want to just yank it if I'm getting something wrong. Peter M. Gerdes (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 * General speaking, my thought is that the article should just stick to the discussion of an isomorphism (a morphism that happens to have an inverse), and not get too deep into the philosophical matter of equality vs isomorphism. Especially tricky is a matter of a canonical isomorphism. It is often the case that a canonical isomorphism is treated as an equality (e.g., $$X \times Y$$ are canonically isomorphic to $$Y \times X$$ but we treat them as the same). This is a delicate hard-to-source matter. A better place for a discussion like that might be in canonical map or a place that discusses equality in mathematics, including a new article suggested above. —- Taku (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 * As a related matter, I have proposed the merger of isomorphism class into the article. I think that is a type of materials that should be emphasized in this article; i.e., an isomorphism is an equivalence relation. —— Taku (talk)

title: Talk:Isomorphism


text:
Talk:Origin of Beowulf and Rolf Krake

Please add your thoughts on the topics raised below!

2003 June 18th, Göteborg

Discussion on Beowulf equalling Rolf Krake

 * Do you have any opinions on the alignments of the Beowulf poem and the charcter of Rolf Krake, known from Snorre's Edda and Saxo's Gesta Danoru (amongst others)?

I have read the old english texts (in a few different versions, I should say, e.g. ('Beowulf in hypertext') and ('Beowulf on Steorarume') as found online, and I am struck by the similarities for which I have not yet found any "official" comments regarding this mentioned similarities of the two characters, Beowulf and Rolf Krake.

- I see an alignment of Beo, in Beowulf, as of beorh (mountain, huge rock etc.), and Wulf, as being the basic name, with the Beo-prefix added as a "nickname" of a sort. This corresponds, in my opinion, to the nickname of Rolf; Krake, perhaps in the same adversed way that the Robin Hood companion John is called Little John, although he is supposedly of great statutes and build. As is Rolf Krake, wether the term "krake" means a small being (crow) or some huge built tree or rock, both explanations which I have found to be mentioned as an explanation of the name Rolf Krake. (Accidentally, "krake" in swedish is a synonym for poorly built and weak.)

- I see the description of fighting, and loosing, to a fire-throwing dragon, and the loss of great fortunes in a funeral pyre, in Beowulf to be an adequate description of how a person is burned to death within his house, in a huge fire. This corresponds, in my opinion, very much to the story of how Rolf Krake is burnt to death over a matter of taxes and fortunes.

- The companion of Beowulf, Wiglaf, is most similar to Rolf Krakes companion Vögg, or Wig, who revenges the death of Rolf Krake by killing the brother-in-law Hjorvard who has killed Rolf.

- The description of Beowulf people as Weder Geats, to me has a very interesting association with a known name on the swedish (of today) west coast; where the island of 'Hallands Väderö', in the meaning of county Halland, Weather-island, very well might indicate some former region in Geatland - Götaland, Gothland; the Wedera Geats.

Discussion on Beowulf equalling Bodvar Bjarke, herdman of Rolf Krake

 * Do you have any opinions on the alignments of the Beowulf poem and the character of Bodvar Bjarke, herdman of Rolf Krake and known from Snorre's Edda and Saxo's Gesta Danorum (amongst others)?

Bodvar Bjarke is known from a separat story, Bjarkamal, relating his life and deeds. He is a more appropriate alignment for Beowulf, although he in Rolf Krakes Saga came to him, Rolf, and not to his uncle Roar/Hrothogar.

- In the Rolf Krake saga, the story of how Bodvar Bjarke (sonson of Norwegian king Ring) came to Rolf's court in Leire includes an episode where Bodvar fights and kills a monsterous beast that for two years have come raiding both men and cattle, exactly around christmas.

- I see an alignment here for the story of Beowulf, who comes to the court of Hrothogar to defeat the monster Grendel, that have been raidng the country for twelve years.

- Bodvar Bjarke is also supposed to have two brothers, out of which Tore Hundfot are said to ba a king in Götaland. then, in Beowulf's elder days, that might account to the fact that he inherited this kingdom from his brother. Then, perhaps - as it was a common thing those days - also Beowulf/Bodvar Bjarke met his death in the flames. Of course, this is contradicted by the fact that Bodvar Bjarke and his bear fylgia supposedly died with king Rolf in the battle against Hjorvard, and so did Hjalte.

2003 June 20th, Göteborg

title: Talk:Origin of Beowulf and Rolf Krake


text:
Talk:Human nature

old discussion on similarity with nature versus nurture
ěCan anyone suggest a principled distinction between this article and nature versus nurture, as the two seem to be headed along redundant paths? --Ryguasu 21:46 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The title "nature versus nurture" suggests a dichotomous framework for thinking about human behavior. The title of this article is open as to whether the proper framework is dichotomous or trichotomous or some higher number of hotomouses! I believe there's a principled distinction and this article ought to stay, but I acknowledge its development thus far hasn't been promising. I hope to work on it. --Christofurio 12:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

As it stands, this article is pretty feeble. Without citations, the paragraphs under the "Arguments for innate behaviour" heading are merely anecdotal. I don't think there is much chance for a NPOV here, the nature versus nurture article would probably be the better place for any discussion on the subject. Shoehorn 22:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why is "the way we use our eyes" preferable to "how we use our eyes"? I have problems with the most recent editing job than that, but I'll start with that, because in this instance I didn't write the phrase that's now being changed, so it should be obvious no "agenda" of mine (except for the truth-seeking agenda) is at stake.

 * My edit wasn't just about your agenda (so to speak). It was a general edit. In the example you mentioned, I just thought "the way we use our eyes" sounded better. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm reminded of the story of a very dedicated grammarian on his deathbed. All his friends leaned in to hear the scholar's final words. He said, "'I am about to leave this world,' 'I will soon leave this world,' -- either expression is correct." --Christofurio 16:07, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Revision for accuracy
In the section Metaphysics and Ethics, I changed "in the image of" to "by a single", as the original definition was not inclusive of all representative belief systems.

Subheads needed?
And, okay, I accept your deletion of my heading on Austrian intellectuals, which linked together two very different schools of thought on the slender basis of a connection to Austria. Point taken. But do we need a subhead or two within our survey of what social theorists since Plato have said re: human nature?

 * Well, the section includes one or two paragraphs on every thinker, so we have the choice between making innumerable single-paragraph sections or keeping the current structure with one single large section. I vote for the latter option. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * We'll stick with this structure for now. If it gets too bulky, we'll have to reconsider. BTW, I just made a change without logging in first, so it may appear that I tried to do something anonymously. Nothing could be further from the truth -- you know by now that anonymity and sock puppets aren't my style. ;-)    --Christofurio 15:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * We can't really say that "furthermore" after criticizing Marxist theory, Freud just happened to criticize the Bolsheviks. That makes it sounds as if the two points are utterly unrelated, and they aren't (either in Freud's mind, the relevant texts, or in the history of Russia). I replaced it with the phrase "in that spirit," which creates a nice parallelism to the use of the same phrase a few sentences before. BTW, you might be interested in the Martin Miller book on this issue that I've cited at bottom of the article. --Christofurio 15:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems reasonable. I agree with this latest version, except for the removal of that economics-related sentence of mine. From reading your paragraph, one might conclude that the idea of humans having bounded rationality is disputed by Marxists, which is not (or at least usually not) the case. The dispute is elsewhere, and that's what my sentence was trying to convey. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * There are several key points about bounded rationality. (a) no set of planners are free of it, not even a set that thinks of itself as a "vanguard" of the "progressive class" -- so no one is qualified to plan an economy, and (b) this isn't something that is true only of one stage of history, subject to some further twist of our wondrous "adaptability" -- it has always been the case and by all appearances will always remain the case that our rationality is bounded, and no one qualified to plan, furthermore (c) my rationality is best adapted to make decisions about my utilities in my circumstances, yours is best adapted to make decisions about your utilities in your circumstances. I'd be happy to spell this all out in the article and then we can work on the wording of what in there Marxists do or don't quarrel with.  But your sentence takes us off into the discussion of economics, rather than the basis of that science within human nature, which is where I'd like to stay. --Christofurio 14:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, please excuse me, I wasn't aware the Austrian School had elevated capitalism to the status of religion. Because that's what your description of "bounded rationality" sounds like: quasi-religious mysticism. "Mysterious are the ways of the market, and thou shalt not interfere with it, because thou art stupid". Philosophically, it seems Marxists hold the humanist moral high ground, since you attempt to degrade human beings to the status of dumb animals who cannot possibly comprehend, let alone control, the "forces of nature" (or, in this case, the forces of the market). I am tempted to ask you whether you have been living under a rock for the past 500 years. Human knowledge has expanded with incredible speed - and at a practically exponential rate - during these past few centuries. We are learning how to build ever more complex things - and you think that something like a national economy is beyond our understanding? It may be far beyond the understanding of any single planner, of course - just like no single human being knows how to build an aircraft carrier - but two minds are better than one, and three minds are better than two. The rationality of any single human being may be bounded, but the rationality of Humanity is limitless. To claim that "no one is qualified to plan an economy" is the same as claiming that "no one is qualified to build a skyscraper". It is perfectly true that no single person is qualified to build a skyscraper. But a team of people with different skills, working together, can build a skyscraper quite easily.
 * And finally, there is the argument that even imperfect order would be preferable to chaos.
 * But to sum up, your views strike me as something right out of the Dark Ages, and going directly against all the things that have been proven time and time again by history (human ingenuity, resourcefullness, and ability to understand and build ever more complex structures). However, you have proven that Marxists do actually dispute this idea of "bounded rationality" (or at least your version of it), so I agree with the current version of the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "humanist high ground" is, or why I should want to live there. It sounds like some planet other than earth. Have you been around for the last forty years or so, during a period when one of the major developments in the sciences has been the evolution of chaos theory and fractal geometry in their broadest applications? The human species now understands that the limits to, say, weather prediction aren't at all mysterious, and aren't just a temporary problem awaiting stronger computers. So long as it remains impossible to know the location of every butterfly on the planet and how it's flapping its wings, it will remain impossible to know in detail about the path of the next tornado in Texas. --Christofurio 14:20, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * First of all: Tsk, tsk, tsk... you should learn a little patience, my friend. It seems you were under the horribly mistaken impression that I was going to let you get away with all this without any further reply. You should have taken a look over at my recent contributions page, and perhaps then you would have noticed that I simply haven't been active on Wikipedia for the past few days - there is such a thing as real life, you know.
 * But now that we've got that unfortunate little misunderstanding out of the way, let us resume our discussion.

 * You seem to do a pretty good job of tearing up your own argument. I quote: "The human species now understands that the limits to, say, weather prediction aren't at all mysterious, and aren't just a temporary problem awaiting stronger computers." Indeed, that is precisely what I have been trying to explain! Our ability to understand complex systems (such as the weather, or the much less complex system of the market) has nothing to do with any mystical limitations to our rationality. It's all a matter of processing power. A brain has a limited amount of processing power. Two brains have double that amount of processing power. Three brains have triple that amount. And so on. ANY system, no matter how complex, can be perfectly understood if you've got a large enough number of brains (i.e. persons) working on it. Furthermore, we can get hold of much additional processing power by building computers. With a large enough number of people and computers, the weather can be predicted with a very high degree of accuracy - and so can the trends of the economy. If your computers are powerful enough, you can have a near-perfect planned economy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem, though, isn't just that I believe your notion of a collective humanity that is utterly unbounded in its rationality to be lacking in realism -- to be, itself, as mystical as any view ever expressed. "Mysterious are the ways of the collective will of the species, and thou shalt not interfere with it, unless thou be a member of the vanguard," to adapt your own formulation -- if you were only fantasizing I could allow your freedom of religion unperturbed. But those who believe that they represent something truly unbounded are, quite naturally, intolerant of those of us who stand in its way -- so I must be ready to resist for the sake of pursuing my own rationality, in my bounded (humble) way looking only for self interest and not for anything as grand as the unbounded fire-river. How does one spell "fire-river" in German, by the way?

 * The above paragraph screams STRAW MAN out of every sentence. First of all, let me make myself clear: Humanity can only be utterly unbounded in its rationality if it contains an infinite number of human beings. In practice, the collective rationality of Humanity is limited by the maximum possible number of human beings that can physically exist in the Universe. Second of all, the statement "thou shalt not interfere with the collective will of the species" is completely nonsensical, since the "collective will" is only the sum of all individual wills. Telling a human being not to interfere with the collective is like telling a neuron not to interfere with the brain. Such a thing would be bad for the neuron, and bad for the brain. Third of all, when did I ever mention anything about any "vanguard"? You assume that I am a strict Leninist, and I'm afraid you assume wrong. I see a very limited role for the vanguard of the proletariat, and that role only exists before the revolution. Fourth of all, you seem utterly incapable of understanding the communist position. Our ideal is the utilitarian ideal: The greatest good for the greatest number. Intolerance and rigidity does nothing to further that goal - on the contrary, dogmatism greatly reduces one's capacity to react and adapt to changes. Dogmatism imposed on society is the surest way to guarantee the death of that society. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting, since I've mentioned a certain famous butterfly, that you should talk about building a "national economy" as the task for hypothetical planners. Is there such a thing as a national economy? Or is it more accurate to say that there is only one economy, and it includes the whole species over the whole globe? A "national economy" is like a national weather map -- none of the pertinent forces stop at its borders.

 * Indeed. The phrase "national economy" was just something I used for lack of a better term. I didn't want to get too far ahead of myself and talk about the entire global economy being planned - although that is, of course, one thing I would love to see. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That isn't religion. It's science. On such issues, contemporary science supports the old Austrian insights.

 * Oh really? You have already described what science has shown (see a few paragraphs above), and I have already thanked you for it, because it provided a powerful argument in favour of my position, not yours. If the Austrian School says that we can never know better than the market, then science has clearly shown the Austrian School to be wrong. There is no reason why we cannot gather the necessary amount of data and processing power to make a planned economy far better than the market. There is no mystical limitation to our rationality embedded in some sort of "human nature" - there are only the physical limits of our brains and our computers, which can be pushed further by getting more people to work on an issue and by building better computers. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, people with different skills working together can build skyscrapers. They don't do so by voting on competing blueprints. They do so by co-ordinating in a manner that recognizes the value of specialization -- something markets bring about very well, and public planning does only very clumsily. Still, a skyscraper is that is child's play compared to the organization of all material and human resources all around the globe -- which is what "the economy" is, nothing less. But it isn't always in the broad interests of society that the skyscraper be built, is it? Isn't it rather Stakhanovite of you to suppose that the more skyscrapers the better? Skyscrapers can represent the conglomeration of wealth and power in a few urban centers, and public decisions that subsidize skyscrapers subsidize that centralization, although market forces might be working centrifugally. My own view is that a skyscraper that doesn't turn a profit in a free market is a misdirection of resources.

 * And if saving a man's life does not turn a profit, is that also a "misdirection of resources"? But going back to my skyscraper example, you should notice that its construction is planned to the tiniest detail. That was my point - a point which you've unsuccessfully attempted to avoid. The people who build the skyscraper are not co-ordinated by any sort of market. They are co-ordinated by a planned structure, and they do a damn good job. Similar examples can be found in every field of human endeavour. We are already planning the organization of all material and human resources on a "local" or "micro" level. All we need is to expand that concept to the "macro" level.
 * But who said that "the more skyscrapers the better"? I only gave the skyscraper as an example of a very large structure built entirely through careful planning. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nor is it necessarily clear how majorities would make such a decision even if we agreed they should. A majority of the neighbors of the planned skyscraper? Of the province? the nation? the world? should someone living at the planetary antipodes of the proposed skyscraper have one vote in a world referendum on it and its nearest neighbor also have just one vote?

 * You seem to deliberately avoid answering your own question, although the answer is quite obvious. There isn't a single level of planning. There are local issues (like building a road) and global issues (like inter-continental trade). The local and global planners communicate in order to co-ordinate their activities. The global plan is more general (i.e. "more office space is needed in city X, and you have Y resources to build it"), while the local plan goes into details (i.e. "we will create the extra office space by building a skyscraper, with the following characteristics..."). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How THAT decision is made, is the real problem. That is where the bounds of rationality become crucial. And, no -- two minds are not necessarily better than one, nor are three better than two, nor is a majority better than a minority, (there is old folk wisdom in the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth" and I see no good reason for humanism to require the denial of that possibility) nor is some appointed "vanguard" of any theorist's "progressive class" better than any other possible self-appointed elite (say, the army's Generals?) for making such decisions. Better to leave them unmade except by the forces of spontaneous order, and to turn over the world's armies to private investors too, while we're at it -- so that these frankly mercenary outfits will also be subject to those forces.

 * You are right about one thing: Self-appointed "elites" are worthless. As I have already asked you a few paragraphs above, when did I ever mention anything about any "vanguard"? If you assume that I am a strict Leninist, then I'm afraid you assume wrong. As for the fact that two minds are better than one, we have already been over this subject twice. Two minds DO have more processing power than one. And "too many cooks spoil the broth" only if the cooks don't work together properly. In addition, we now have those things called "computers" which can be used to analyze and plan ever more complex structures.
 * Oh, and by the way, some places have already turned the army over to private investors - places like Somalia, for example. Or Iraq, for that matter. I heard it's very profitable to be a warlord in Afghanistan too. If that's your vision of an ideal world, why don't you go to one of these wonderful places to enjoy it? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"And finally," you tell me, "there is the argument that even imperfect order would be preferable to chaos." Yes, there is that. Some good guess about what the weather is, might well be better than a shrug. But your assumption that spontaneous order, that which arises from the higgle-haggle of rational beings each looking out for his/her own interest, is "chaos" in the negative sense you require is simply your assumption. It isn't supported by the latest results of that 500 year old enterprise called science that we both respect -- because those latest results have given the word a more positive connotation.

 * Coming from someone who champions the utterly unfounded assumption that "spontaneous order" is naturally better than any other kind of order, your comments are very funny - in a hypocritical sort of way. Especially since that little branch of science called History supports my views, not yours. Tell me, where was your magical "spontaneous order" during the Dark Ages? In fact, almost in every case, order (any kind of order) has proven better than chaos (which I define as "letting things run themselves with no regulatory interference", just so as to avoid any kind of confusion). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At any rate, I'm glad I've persuaded you that this is a crucial difference in the Austrian/Marxist view of human nature. It looks like I'm spreading good cheer as usual. Check out the liberty article when you get a chance. I've made some recent additions there you might also enjoy. --Christofurio 14:15, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, don't worry, I'll certainly go have a look when I get the time. Until then, I'm also happy that we've reached an agreement on the Human Nature article - although this little debate looks like it's going to be very time-consuming. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not so Horribly Mistaken
I am not sure where you got the "impression" that I was under the "horribly mistaken impression" that you wouldn't respond to my thoughts. From my creation of a separate subhead for them? That was an aesthetic decision, of no predictive significance whatsoever. I'm always glad to see your thoughts and had no beliefs at all about how much time it would require you to return to this page -- that is your concern, of course, not mine.

Likewise, how you label yourself is your concern and not mine, but if you don't believe that there is a need for an enlightened "vanguard" of the working class than your self-labelling as a Trotskyite may be a tad heterodox. But let me move on to concerns that are as much my concern as yours.

The comparison of human individuals with neurons in the brain strikes me as an extraordinarily dangerous one, as if leading up to the decision to treat dissidents as tumor cells, which of course have to be removed (killed) for the good of the whole organ. The humanist high ground? But if we must have such a horribly organicist image, let us acknowledge that these neurons decide how they interact. They can't decide each to live as a hermit, but they can decide to interact by buying, selling, and investing rather than by voting.

After all, that is how skyscrapers generally do get built. Some people invest by buying the stocks or bonds of a construction company. Its managers hire subcontractors, who hire employees, some of whom are architects, others of whom are brick-layers, etc. The neurons interact by buying goods and services from one another, on terms driven by supply and demand, like the purchase and sale of canvases on which painters can express themselves.

Your planned global economy with all sorts of voting-driven levels of majoritarianism down to the town council and up to the Planet Government, is an improvement upon this ... why? Because its more coercive? That's a negative, not a positive. Because it involves voting? Why is that a good thing? Because those who don't like it can leave by opting out of the social contract, as you promised on your Talk page? No sovereign yet has agreed with you in giving such an opt out an institutional reality. I would gladly endorse it -- anarcho-capitalists ask for nothing more. We would expect that the opting outs would soon reach the level that would allow for the opters to build skyscrapers (if and only if the market realities supported them). But I also suspect that as soon as that appeared likely, the opt-out "privileges" would be revoked by the planners, the addicts of sovereignty. There has to be a general withering of the myth of sovereignty for anarcho-capitalism to succeed on the global level.

As to the question whether the saving of a single life can be a misdirection of resources: yes. Of course it can! If you think through what you describe as the utilitarian elements of your own world-view you will soon reach the same conclusion. How much resource use has to be extended in the saving of one life before that becomes prohibitively expensive in terms of other opportunities lost, including the opportunities of other rescues? That is a question for any form of consequentialism, of course. Is the profit motive worse as a way of answering tht question than some alternative? Perhaps. Saying so won't make it so, though.

Do capitalists plan? Yes, of course. Does such planning prove that planning at a greater "macro-level" is required, or even rational? No. Planning within a market framework is consistent with the premise of bounded rationality, with an understanding of the impossibility of predicting the results of all the flaps of the butterfly wings. Planning in a way that would esssentially abolish the market framework requires a coterie of planners with coercive sovereign power -- capable of regarding dissidents as cancerous cells requiring removal, as your analogy indicates. It is the difference between the planning of the kulaks and the planning of those who liquidated the kulaks. Majoritarianism doesn't affect that issue at all -- since even self-appointed vanguardist dictators find it easy to "plan" the liquidation of unpopular relatively affluent minorities, to everybody's loss.

Let us consider the sentence, "too many cooks spoil the broth only if the cooks don't work together properly." Is that anything but a tautology? If the broth is spoiled than we consider that the working-together must have improper, right? The point of the folk saying, though, seems to be that the more cooks there are working on the same soup, the more likely it is that there will be some such impropriety in their working together. Better to have one cook who likes to make salty soups, and another who makes them salt-free, then to have them arguing in the kitchen while the soup boils over. In the case of two competing cooks, the market will decide what amount of saltiness eventually prevails. And that is a bad method of making that decision because...?

Ah, because letting the cooks go their own way subject to market forces leads us to Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Oh, great logician, I bow in awe at your leaps of faith. The problem in all those places arises not from the general rejection of the myth of sovereignty but from its acceptance, and the competition of different would-be governments to control the levers that this myth creates.

Your appeal to the dark ages in Europe is more interesting. Consider an average serf in France in, say, 799 AD. Compare his lot to that of a slave or other humbly born schmoe in late-imperial Gaul in, say, 299 AD. Is it obvious to you that the former had a worse life than the latter? Is it obvious that the collapse of the western Empire and its sort of planning had hurt the common folk? It isn't obvious to me, although I concede that it is possible.

If bottom-of-the-hierarchy life in France was worse in 799 than it had been in Gaul in 299 (a big "if"), then I submit the most likely explanation was the diminution in trade around the Meditteranean basin. When Rome controlled the whole basin and called it "Our Ocean," there was a lot of trade, subject always to the nuisance of piracy. After the rise of Islam, the basin was in effect split in two, and trade between the two halves became a rare and surreptitious practice. That may have hurt our hypothetical serf much more than the fall of Rome itself. And of course the rise of Islam was a lot of things, some of them positive (the creation of algebra, etc.) but it was not a test of anarcho-capitalism. What was the situation in terms of trade in between the fall of Rome and the Rise of Islam? Ah, a complicated question, see the article on Henri Pirenne, who addressed this point.

Not a bad little essay for a lazy Saturday afternoon. Reply when and if you get the notion. I am, for the most part, simply endeavoring to cure you of your reflex of letting cliches like "the dark ages" or "the humanist high ground" do your thinking for you. Those too-ready phrases, like your usage of italics in other cases, avoid thought and substance. --Christofurio 19:03, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I may have excluded some points, in that lazy Saturday way of mine, that you would expect me to cover. So here we go. Your comments about how I have refuted myself seem based on the idea that I first (a) put forward a quasi-mystical notion of human boundedness and later (b) refuted it by putting forth a naturalistic account of the same phenomenon based on chaos theory. But this isn’t self refutation at all. It isn’t even a change of emphasis. I never said that there was anything mystical about the idea, and have always been perfectly willing to take it as naturalistic.

You, on the other hand, do seem top be backing off an earlier statement. You said that the “high ground” position was that human rationality is in principle unbounded ("limitless" was your word) if understood collectively. But now you have added that this will only be true when there are an infinite number of humans – which means, I infer, that it will never be true. If you mean infinite population as a real project you must be a fun guy at conventions of the ZPG folks! There will always be an infinite gulf between infinity and any actual finite number, however large, so we’re stuck with boundedness.

Ah, yes, but we have computers! I’m not clear on why they are more important to the principles at stake here than is an abacus, though. Are the computers going to make resource allocation decisions for us, or will humans make them? If the computers make them, then we’ve abandoned the market and abandoned any notion of majority rule, too. Digitocracy is neither anarchy nor democracy. On the other hand, if humans are going to continue to make decisions, then human boundedness remains as important a fact about human nature as it has always been, and the conclusions the Austrian school deduced from it a century ago followed logically then and still follow logically now – despite the availability of abacuses and related tricks.

deletion
I deleted a fallacious statement, recently added, to the effect that debates over socialism, central planning, etc., have "little to do" with bounded rationality. The subjects could hardly have more to do with one another! Here is what Freidrich Hayek said, for example, in his lecture upon winning the Nobel Prize.

"This brings me to the crucial issue. Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes."

What rationality can do, then, is the "crucial issue" for the Austrian school of which Hayek was a spokesman. It may not be crucial for other schools, but let's not sweep it under the rug in an encyclopedia.--Christofurio 19:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Locke under neutral
Just a small suggestion but shouldn't Locke be categorized under philosophers who thought human nature to be neutral?

Incomplete Article
There was something about Human Nature that has no mention here, and really should. The basic feeling of "incomplete" as well as "contradictions" within specific mental states. For example, one may desire to move forward and change, while also desiring to stay the same. Or one might feel like being or acting in one way, while doing the complete opposite. The world over people can be seen to act in this way or that, the driving force often being desire or intention, and the fuel behind that is the wish to fill something. People often express a need to fill, nd live their whole lives not happy with what they have gained. This basic pattern, I observe to be a fundamental core to human nature and worth mention. I'm just not sure what it would be called, or how to properly express it.

Another point I'd like to make is in regards to "Free will and determinism" - I think a very important view was left out. Some feel that we have free will, and that much of it flows from the depths of conciousness, or a soul, which can belie expectations based on the conditions placed on it, however it can also be seen as true that even with Free will, one can observe a number of conditions and predict an outcome. One may even be ale to step in, giving or withholding information (Manipulation) as a means of predetermining free will. According to this view, we have Free Will, and that our choices are based on both the determined and the undertermined, that many actions may be expected given the right conditions while many others do not. It would be my understanding that large scale "end results" involving many people would be much easier to predict through determinism than individual patterns because it may leave itself open to variation. (I hope I am making sense?)

This ideal is also core behind various belief systems. For example, in one Biblical text the Future is told and so choices are made which ensures it will happen. The argument for "Divine intervention" would state that the information was given so to ensure that it would happen, operating under the assumption that the resulting actions could be predicted. However, in other texts of predition, such as Nostradamus, it is specifically stated that the future is not determined. In this case, the future predicted may be a "most likly scenario" based on determinism, but with the understanding that Free will cannot be fully predicted. However, it may be argued just the same that information predicted may in itself cause a change in potential outcome. Because it adds a factor into the equation of expectation.

Gwaeraurond 6:03 PM EST, 3 March 2006

This article was about human nature. It is very abstract, it tells us who talks about human nature: the artist, the philosopher. However, I see very little about what human nature is. Can someone please show us what human nature include. Here is example: desire to be accepted is a human nature, afraid of dark is human nature, dreaming is human nature. I think you get my idea. Please add some more examples to this topic.

Hypernyms

 * human condition

Deletion of Hormones Section
This section does not relate to human nature in any capacity, aside from the one unsourced claim that hormones can affect human instincts. Testosterone is the only hormone listed under this section, so unless others are added, so unless every other hormone known to affect human instincts is going to be included I don't think it warrants its own subheading. The section is also labelled as 'missing information' which means it does not fully encapsulate the discussion necessary for including it. The requested information on this label also does not seem particularly relevant to the topic of the article, so I would suggest writing about the way hormones affect human instincts in a different article and removing it from this one. WillNop (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Early Modern Philosophy"
The sentence "Rousseau's proposal that human nature is malleable became a major influence upon international revolutionary movements of various kinds, while Hume's approach has been more typical in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United States.[citation needed]" does not seem relevant to me, further lacks specificity. Although the two philosophers have had influence on many, there is no citation that I could find that not only supports this or ties into the subject of Human Nature.

If anyone can either provide sources or work with me to make this more relevant, I would greatly appreciate it. NNoble07 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Ardent bioconservatives"
The article as it currently stands informs us that In the cases of Habermas and Fukuyama, we're given whole books as references, without page numbers. In the case of McKibben, we're given a position paper by an adversary (Bostrom). I looked up both the Habermas and the Fukuyama books on Preview and searched "biocon", both of which yielded zero results. I also looked up the Kass source, which is available as a PDF, and saw that it doesn't mention the term either. Am I missing something here? Are there neutral secondary sources which identify these figures as "ardent bioconservatives"? Or are there primary sources where each of these figures explicitly identify in this way? If the answer to these questions is "no", we're looking at some rather egregious WP:OR. Generalrelative (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article Bioconservatism, it seems that the problem is pervasive there too. We appear to be relying almost entirely (if not outright entirely) on the views of critics of "bioconservatism", who use the term as a catch-all for positions they disagree with. If this is so, it's still alright to use the term when appropriate, but it needs to be done with attribution (as in "Person A characterizes Person B as a bioconservative). Generalrelative (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm only guessing, and have not looked closely at all, but this situation doesn't seem so strange. The term itself might be something which has developed in secondary literature after those writers wrote. But then you are right that we should eventually be citing and potentially attributing that secondary literature. Is there any evidence that the category itself might be controversial?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You may remove the "ardent", of course. I don't know how to best solve the rest as..., indeed, none of them seem to define themselves as bioconservatives (*although the term is quite common!) Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the term is that common, are there secondary sources describing them as such? Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If the only people calling them that are ideological opponents, it needs to be attributed at the very least. If there are neutral secondary sources routinely using the term, on the other hand, that's a different matter. But I have yet to see any.
 * To speak a bit more plainly: if what we're seeing with this term is a rhetorical tactic used by proponents of "new eugenics" to characterize their opponents as old-fashioned, we need to be very careful that it is indeed necessary to mention the term wherever we do, and in those cases use attribution strictly. Generalrelative (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Something like this topic is likely to become "important" I suppose. It would be good if we find some better and broader sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Human nature


text:
Implied volatility

In financial mathematics, the implied volatility (IV) of an option contract is that value of the volatility of the underlying instrument which, when input in an option pricing model (usually Black–Scholes), will return a theoretical value equal to the price of the option. A non-option financial instrument that has embedded optionality, such as an interest rate cap, can also have an implied volatility. Implied volatility, a forward-looking and subjective measure, differs from historical volatility because the latter is calculated from known past returns of a security. To understand where implied volatility stands in terms of the underlying, implied volatility rank is used to understand its implied volatility from a one-year high and low IV.

Motivation
An option pricing model, such as Black–Scholes, uses a variety of inputs to derive a theoretical value for an option. Inputs to pricing models vary depending on the type of option being priced and the pricing model used. However, in general, the value of an option depends on an estimate of the future realized price volatility, σ, of the underlying. Or, mathematically:

 * $$C = f(\sigma, \cdot) \,$$

where C is the theoretical value of an option, and f is a pricing model that depends on σ, along with other inputs.

The function f is monotonically increasing in σ, meaning that a higher value for volatility results in a higher theoretical value of the option. Conversely, by the inverse function theorem, there can be at most one value for σ that, when applied as an input to $$f(\sigma, \cdot) \,$$, will result in a particular value for C.

Put in other terms, assume that there is some inverse function g = f−1, such that

 * $$\sigma_\bar{C} = g(\bar{C}, \cdot) \,$$

where $$\scriptstyle \bar{C} \,$$ is the market price for an option. The value $$\sigma_\bar{C} \,$$ is the volatility implied by the market price $$\scriptstyle \bar{C} \,$$, or the implied volatility.

In general, it is not possible to give a closed form formula for implied volatility in terms of call price (for a review see ). However, in some cases (large strike, low strike, short expiry, large expiry) it is possible to give an asymptotic expansion of implied volatility in terms of call price. A different approach based on closed form approximations has been also investigated.

Example
A European call option, $$C_{XYZ}$$, on one share of non-dividend-paying XYZ Corp with a strike price of $50 expires in 32 days. The risk-free interest rate is 5%. XYZ stock is currently trading at $51.25 and the current market price of $$C_{XYZ}$$ is $2.00. Using a standard Black–Scholes pricing model, the volatility implied by the market price $$C_{XYZ}$$ is 18.7%, or:

 * $$\sigma_\bar{C} = g(\bar{C}, \cdot) = 18.7\%$$

To verify, we apply implied volatility to the pricing model, f , and generate a theoretical value of $2.0004:

 * $$C_{theo} = f(\sigma_\bar{C}, \cdot) = \$2.0004$$

which confirms our computation of the market implied volatility.

Solving the inverse pricing model function
In general, a pricing model function, f, does not have a closed-form solution for its inverse, g. Instead, a root finding technique is often used to solve the equation:

 * $$f(\sigma_\bar{C}, \cdot) - \bar{C} = 0 \,$$

While there are many techniques for finding roots, two of the most commonly used are Newton's method and Brent's method. Because options prices can move very quickly, it is often important to use the most efficient method when calculating implied volatilities.

Newton's method provides rapid convergence; however, it requires the first partial derivative of the option's theoretical value with respect to volatility; i.e., $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial \sigma} \,$$, which is also known as vega (see The Greeks). If the pricing model function yields a closed-form solution for vega, which is the case for Black–Scholes model, then Newton's method can be more efficient. However, for most practical pricing models, such as a binomial model, this is not the case and vega must be derived numerically. When forced to solve for vega numerically, one can use the Christopher and Salkin method or, for more accurate calculation of out-of-the-money implied volatilities, one can use the Corrado-Miller model.

Specifically in the case of the Black[-Scholes-Merton] model, Jaeckel's "Let's Be Rational" method computes the implied volatility to full attainable (standard 64 bit floating point) machine precision for all possible input values in sub-microsecond time. The algorithm comprises an initial guess based on matched asymptotic expansions, plus (always exactly) two Householder improvement steps (of convergence order 4), making this a three-step (i.e., non-iterative) procedure. A reference implementation in C++ is freely available. Besides the above mentioned root finding techniques, there are also methods that approximate the multivariate inverse function directly. Often they are based on polynomials or rational functions.

For the Bachelier ("normal", as opposed to "lognormal") model, Jaeckel published a fully analytic and comparatively simple two-stage formula that gives full attainable (standard 64 bit floating point) machine precision for all possible input values.

Implied volatility parametrisation
With the arrival of Big Data and Data Science parametrising the implied volatility has taken central importance for the sake of coherent interpolation and extrapolation purposes. The classic models are the SABR and SVI model with their IVP extension.

Implied volatility as measure of relative value
As stated by Brian Byrne, the implied volatility of an option is a more useful measure of the option's relative value than its price. The reason is that the price of an option depends most directly on the price of its underlying asset. If an option is held as part of a delta neutral portfolio (that is, a portfolio that is hedged against small moves in the underlying's price), then the next most important factor in determining the value of the option will be its implied volatility. Implied volatility is so important that options are often quoted in terms of volatility rather than price, particularly among professional traders.

Example
A call option is trading at $1.50 with the underlying trading at $42.05. The implied volatility of the option is determined to be 18.0%. A short time later, the option is trading at $2.10 with the underlying at $43.34, yielding an implied volatility of 17.2%. Even though the option's price is higher at the second measurement, it is still considered cheaper based on volatility. The reason is that the underlying needed to hedge the call option can be sold for a higher price.

As a price
Another way to look at implied volatility is to think of it as a price, not as a measure of future stock moves. In this view, it simply is a more convenient way to communicate option prices than currency. Prices are different in nature from statistical quantities: one can estimate volatility of future underlying returns using any of a large number of estimation methods; however, the number one gets is not a price. A price requires two counterparties, a buyer, and a seller. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Statistical estimates depend on the time-series and the mathematical structure of the model used. It is a mistake to confuse a price, which implies a transaction, with the result of a statistical estimation, which is merely what comes out of a calculation. Implied volatilities are prices: they have been derived from actual transactions. Seen in this light, it should not be surprising that implied volatilities might not conform to what a particular statistical model would predict.

However, the above view ignores the fact that the values of implied volatilities depend on the model used to calculate them: different models applied to the same market option prices will produce different implied volatilities. Thus, if one adopts this view of implied volatility as a price, then one also has to concede that there is no unique implied-volatility-price and that a buyer and a seller in the same transaction might be trading at different "prices".

Non-constant implied volatility
In general, options based on the same underlying but with different strike values and expiration times will yield different implied volatilities. This can be viewed as evidence that an underlying's volatility is not constant but instead depends on factors such as price level or time, or it can be viewed as evidence that the underlying's price changes do not follow the distribution that is assumed in the model under consideration (such as Black-Scholes). There exist few known parametrisation of the volatility surface (Schonbusher, SVI, and gSVI) as well as their de-arbitraging methodologies. See stochastic volatility and volatility smile for more information.

Volatility instruments
Volatility instruments are financial instruments that track the value of implied volatility of other derivative securities. For instance, the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is calculated from a weighted average of implied volatilities of various options on the S&P 500 Index. There are also other commonly referenced volatility indices such as the VXN index (Nasdaq 100 index futures volatility measure), the QQV (QQQ volatility measure), IVX - Implied Volatility Index (an expected stock volatility over a future period for any of US securities and exchange-traded instruments), as well as options and futures derivatives based directly on these volatility indices themselves.

title: Implied volatility


text:
Dino Dini

Dino Dini (born 5 June 1965) is an Italian-British video game developer and creator of the Kick Off series of football games. He was a lecturer at the NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, teaching game programming.

Career
In 1989 Dini's football game Kick Off was published by Anil Gupta's publishing house Anco Software, for the Atari ST & Amiga to critical acclaim and high sales. Dini followed it with Player Manager and Kick Off 2. Goal! (also known as Dino Dini's Soccer) was then released after Dini left Anco and moved to Virgin Games in 1993. Goal! was critically acclaimed worldwide. Goal! introduced more user friendly controls compared to Kick Off 2 and entertained a wider audience than its predecessor. In 1996, Dini moved to the United States to work as project director for the Z-Axis football game Three Lions, released in 1998.

In 2001, Dini moved back to Great Britain and started to work with his new development company, Abundant Software. In 2004, Dini signed with DC Studios to develop a new soccer game which was code-named Soccer 3 and later Total Control Football. The game was cancelled during the summer of 2005.

After 2005, Dini worked as a contractor on a government-funded project. In 2009, he became a lecturer for the International Game Architecture and Design programme at NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, teaching game programming. At the 2009 Game Developers Conference Europe (GDCE) in Cologne, Germany, Dini was guest speaker on the subject of video game design.

In 2010, Dino ran unsuccessfully for a position on the International Game Developers Association board of directors. In August of that year, he announced via his blog that he was working on a sequel to his game Player Manager as an independent project. In 2011 he contributed articles and the beta version of his browser-based game Letteroids 3D to DevilsMMO, a website for MMO and MMORPG games.

A new game of Kick Off series, titled Dino Dini's Kick Off Revival, was released on the PlayStation 4 in June 2016, with poor reviews from game journalists, and from players. Metacritic judged Kick Off Revival the 2nd worst game of 2016. Vice elected Revival as the worst football game ever made. A PlayStation Vita version was delayed and released nine months later in March 2017 with bad reviews.

The PC version, released on Steam in September 2017, was an exact port of the PlayStation 4 version. Whilst maintaining an overall "mixed" summary status, it has similarly received bad reviews for being a basic game missing many features of the original Kick Off games.

Games
Games developed by Dini include:

 * Kick Off (published by Anco, 1989): Amiga, Atari ST
 * Player Manager (Anco, 1990): Amiga, Atari ST
 * Kick Off 2 (Anco, 1990): Amiga, Atari ST
 * GOAL! (Virgin Games, 1993): Amiga, Atari ST, PC
 * Dino Dini's Soccer (Virgin Games, 1994): Mega Drive, Super NES

title: Dino Dini


text:
Gylfi

In Norse mythology, Gylfi (Old Norse: ), Gylfe, Gylvi, or Gylve was the earliest recorded king of Sviþjoð, Sweden, in Scandinavia. He is known by the name Gangleri when appearing in disguise. The Danish tradition on Gylfi deal with how he was tricked by Gefjon and her sons from Jötunheim, who were able to shapeshift into tremendous oxen.

The creation of Zealand
The Ynglinga saga section of Snorri's Heimskringla and the Eddic poem Ragnarsdrápa tell a legend of how Gylfi was seduced by the goddess Gefjon to give her as much land as she could plow in one night. Gefjon transformed her four sons into oxen and took enough land to create the Danish island of Zealand, leaving the Swedish lake Vänern.

Meeting the Æsir

Gylfaginning in the Prose Edda and the Ynglinga saga tell how the supposedly historic (non-deified version) Odin and his people the Æsir and Vanir, who later became the Swedes, obtained new land where they built the settlement of Old Sigtuna. In Snorri's account Gylfi is supposedly deluded by the Æsir into accepting their religion; hence the name "Gylfaginning", most often interpreted as the "deluding of Gylfi", although '-ginning' is regarded the same as what we recognise in "beginning", thus "the origin of Gylfi" is also possible. Gylfi and the remaining older bronze-age inhabitants of the land then supposedly adopted the religion of the Æsir and began to live under their rule. Snorri presents an outline of Norse mythology through a dialogue between Gylfi and three rulers of the Æsir.

It is possible that Snorri's account is based on an old tradition tracing particular beliefs or foundations of particular Norse cults to this legendary Gylfi. However, it is much more likely that the historic King Gylfi was simply already a follower of the ancient Norse religion and, as such, could easily have passed on these beliefs or stories.

Other appearances
In one version of Hervarar saga, king Gylfi married his daughter Heiðr to Sigrlami, the king of Garðaríki (Russia). Heiðr and Sigrlami had the son Svafrlami, who forced the two dwarves Dvalin and Durin to forge the magic sword Tyrfing.

A Gylfi is attested in the lineage of sea-kings in Hversu Noregr byggðist, a saga sketching out an origin myth of Norway, where he appears as the brother of Glamma, eponymous of the longest river in Norway, now spelled Glomma, sons of Geitir, apparently one of four sons of Gor the brother of Nór, eponymous first king of Nórway. The connection with Glamma is interesting regarding how Gylfi is attested in Ynglinga saga particularly connecting him to the longest river system in Scandinavia, now carrying four different names beginning as Femund river and Trysil river in Norway, then Klarälven in Sweden, above the rather big lake Vänern into which it drains, central to the story of Gefjon in Ynglinga saga, and finally Göta älv that drains lake Vänern into the Kattegat, at the city of Gothenburg, on the western coast of Sweden. Hversu Noregr byggðist is loaded with eponymous tales to such an extent that to not connect this Gylfi with this river system would be kind of ignorant. One will find some common sources of the drainage-system forming the signified rivers in the Mountain-region of Norway, turning into Rena River as a tributary to Glomma, and Femund River, as a tributary to Kläraälven. The lake Korssjøen which drains to the east into the Femund River and the drainage system reaching the sea by Gothenburg in Sweden, and the lake Narsjøen that drains to the north into Nørå River and Glomma running south, reaching the sea close to Fredrikstad by the Oslofjord.

title: Gylfi


text:
Talk:Naturalization

Naturalization is mentioned
Naturalization is mentioned in the Constitution proper. Congress is given the power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, which was administered by state courts. There was some confusion about which courts could naturalize; the final ruling was that it could be done by any "court of record having common-law jurisdiction and a clerk (prothonotary) and seal."

The Constitution also mentions "natural born citizen". The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably. To be "naturalized" therefore means to become as if "natural born".

Note added to include the UK spelling Naturalisation. Does anyone know how to create a redirect page for that spelling to Naturalization? MPF 19:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The matter of racial non-neutrality of naturalization could use some clarification. The law, while indeed quite bad and racist, was never quite as simple as "non-whites not naturalized." The meaning of "white", in fact, shifted quite a bit. And laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act were designed specifically to refine (in a xenophobic way) the criteria for naturalization.

Probably not all of this should be in the Naturalization article itself, but some pointers and citations would be useful.

--Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the section on the Naturalization Act of 1798, there is a mention that "It specifically targeted Irish and French immigrants who were involved in Republican politics." In what sense are we talking about republican politics? This can't be the Republican party as they weren't organized until the mid-1800s. Is this concerning republican as a political theory and in which case, the word should be lowercase anyways?
 * The Jeffersonian "Anti-Federalist" party was known as the Republican Party, then the Democratic Republican Party, then the Democratic Party. Yes, it is confusing. Maybe "anti-federalist" would be a clearer reference.Pi9 18:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naturalization outside United States?
The article as it stands refers only to naturalization in the United States. Who can write a history of naturalization in other countries? For starters, try to provide paragraphs (or longer, if available) information about naturalization in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Israel — these countries have either had or have noticeable immigrant population.

C'mon, give it a try! Many thanks in advance.

— Diamantina 03:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citizenship in US
Here is a link which may help to clarify citizenship in the USA upon ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment:

 * http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#k

Germany 3 years
I think it changed. --2003:C0:71C:A400:B1CF:651:F0B2:EF41 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Naturalization of children
Summary by country table is excellent, however it lacks an important dimension: what happens to a legal status of the naturalized citizens' children if they have not reached the age of majority? Do you think that the table should be augmented to accommodate this info or creating a new article is a better approach? Palooski (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Uruguay doesn't have a naturalization path for its immigrants
Since 2015, when the Uruguayan State began to apply the provisions of the agreement it signed with the International Civil Aviation Organization, the passport of legal citizens indicates, in the nationality field, the nationality corresponding to the country of birth, since the DNIC Manual establishes that "nationality" is an innate human characteristic that cannot be changed or modified. The Uruguayan State defined nationality in this way based on an interpretation of the Constitution made by the jurist Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga in the mid-twentieth century. Jiménez de Aréchaga's interpretation, found in one of Uruguay's fundamental academic interpretative texts, states: "In the first place, nationality is presented to us as a natural bond, derived from birth, from blood". Likewise, this jurist believed that "nationality corresponds to a certain sociological or psychological reality". Speaking on behalf of the drafters of the Constitution of 1830, this jurist concluded: "The quality of nationality thus depends on one fact: birth in the territory of the State". Finally, "nationality is irrevocable".

According to Uruguayan law, the concepts of nationality and citizenship are distinguishable, the first being of a real or sociological nature and the second of a legal nature. This differentiation forms the traditional concept that comes to us from the illustrious exponent of our Constitutional Law, Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga.

He argued that nationality and citizenship are two completely different individual conditions. According to Aréchaga's view nationality is a permanent state of the individual, which does not suffer any alteration whatever the point of the earth they inhabit, and citizenship is, on the contrary, variable and alters with the different domiciles that men acquire in the different societies into which mankind is divided.

The source of citizenship, he added, is in the actual domicile and not in nationality.

Therefore, he says: "each state feels who its nationals are, and declares it by its law; on the other hand, each state decides who its citizens are, and it disposes of them by its law, for nationality corresponds to a certain sociological or psychological reality." (JUSTINO JIMÉNEZ DE ARECHAGA, La Constitución Nacional. Volume II pg. 186) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratelibrarian (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

By establishing itself in art. 81 of our Constitution that nationality is not lost even by naturalizing in another country and that citizenship is lost by any other form of subsequent naturalization, the constituent affirms the irrevocability of nationality considering that this obeys a natural bond that derives from the birth of the person, a fact in which his will does not intervene.

There are different consequences that the same fact -naturalization in another country- causes in nationality and legal citizenship: the first is not lost, the second is.

Consequently with the above, the Uruguayan Passport reflects said requirement; so that, in the site assigned to the nationality of its owner, the place is recorded geographic location of his birth.

Legal citizenship has special characteristics, the persons who acquire it keep the nationality of origin. The legal citizen acquires political rights but does not acquire the nationality as the natural citizens (special case in the world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratelibrarian (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This local and unusual conception makes Uruguay, along with Myanmar, the only to countries that deny immigrants any means of naturalization. This has created confusion at the international level and has limited the exercise of the right to free movement of legal citizens, as their travel abroad is often difficult or sometimes impossible. Many nations do not accept passports issued by a nation that declares the holder to be a national of another nation. This is despite the fact that Uruguay is a member state of Mercosur and an associated state of the Andean Community, so all persons holding a Uruguayan passport or Uruguayan identity card are entitled to move, work and live freely without the need for a visa in any South American country except Suriname and Guyana. Some Uruguayan citizens may even, as a result of the application of a national law of a third nation and this Uruguayan interpretation, become stateless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_nationality_law

https://www.somostodos.uy/ Accuratelibrarian (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Naturalization