text:
Mithila (proposed Indian state)

Mithila is a proposed state in India, comprising the Maithili speaking region of Bihar and Jharkhand. The Maithili language has own traditional script, known as Mithilakshar. It is part of the historical Mithila region. The proposed state will also include Whole Angika and Bajjika speaking districts which are considered to be dialects of Maithili.

There was also a movement in the Maithili speaking areas of Nepal for a separate state which ended in 2015, after Constitution of Nepal (2015) ensured it in form of province two.

History
Dr Laksman Jha and Others demanded a Mithila state shortly after independence and the former Chief Minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra has also expressed support for the creation of the state.

Various organisations have been formed that demand the formation of a state including the Maithil Mahasabha and the Mithilanchal Vikash Congress the former received support from Raj Darbhanga. Various demonstrations have taken place demanding a Mithila state with a major protest taking place in Delhi in 2009 organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Mithila Rajya Sangharsh Samiti.

Mithila Rajya Nirman Sena
Mithila Rajya Nirman Sena also did a Sankalp yatra under his leadership in 2017 and 2021 to create awareness and support for the movement
 * Senior BJP leader, Rangnath Thakur, chairman and Founding member of Mithila Rajya Nirman Sena, has organised public rallies supporting Mithila.

Bharatiya Janata Party

 * Former BJP MP Kirti Azad from Darbhanga (Current Congress leader) has organised multiple dharnas and protests in support of Mithila. He has also launched a signature campaign in Mithila aiming to raise awareness.
 * Senior BJP leader, Tarakant Jha, former chairman of Bihar Legislative Council, has organised public rallies supporting Mithila.

Janata Dal (United)

 * In November 2011, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar also extended his support for the statehood of Mithila.
 * Shravan Chaudhary, JDU state president, has openly supported the demand for the statehood of Mithila.

Rashtriya Janata Dal

 * Rabri Devi, former CM of Bihar, has always favoured the creation of a separate Mithila state.

Justification for Separation
The demand for separate Mithila state has been there since creation of State of Bihar in 1912.
 * The problems of Mithila region are different from rest of Bihar.
 * Maithili the language of the region has not been properly recognised. The 8th schedule of the Constitution of India includes the recognition of the 22 languages including Maithili (but in Devanagari Script). In Bihar Maithili is yet receive any official status.

Challenges
Mithila is a poor and flood-prone region dependent on subsistence agriculture, leading to doubts over its economically feasibility as a separate state.

The demand for a separate Mithila stems mostly from Darbhanga-Madhubani region, with virtually no support from Tirhut, Seemanchal, Angika speaking Bhagalpur & Munger divisions and Bhojpuri speaking East & West Champaran districts.

title: Mithila (proposed Indian state)


text:
Talk:Shastra

Untitled
I don't think that the definition is correct. I think that Shastra means an art/ craft/ technical/ practical or professional knowledge, not knowledge in the general sense- Artha Shastra, Vastu Shastra, etc., KRS 09:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the problem arises due to the difficulty in pronouncing the two different words shastra and shaastra. The first one has a truncated 'a' in the middle. The current definition is for shaastra not shastra.RH

Definition

 * The Unification of Wisdom and Compassion Dr. Yutang Lin

Dr. Yutang Lin says here: "Parallel to the Heart Sutra, I have written an article entitled "The Heart of Sublimation through Limitless-Oneness Compassion Sastra." Because it has been written by me, not something given by Buddha, it cannot be called a "Sutra"; it is called a "Sastra." In Buddhism, Buddhists are allowed to offer their theses as long as they are consistent with the Sutras, and those are called "Sastras."

 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.213 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/sh/shastra.htm

 * -- 88.75.92.199 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some additional information
http://lionsroar.name/tantric_glossary.htm

"shastra (S): A treatise upon or exposition of a sutra; a Mahayana texts that expounds the meaning of the sutra or group of sutras. The Indian Mahayana schools grew from an attempt to systemasize the teachings of two groups of sutras. The Madhyamaka school clarifed and categorized the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) sutras, while the Yogacarin school did the same for the "idealist" sutras, the earliest being the Samdhi-nirmocana (c. 2nd c.) and later the Lankavatara (4th c.). A number of the shastras are traditionally attributed to Maitreya, as received by Asanga, founder of the Yogacarin school. These texts include the Uttaratantra Shastra (Ratnagotravibhaga-mahayana-uttaratantra-shastra, or "Analysis of the Jewel Matrix, Supreme Tantra of the Universal Vehicle." Other shastras attributed to Asanga include the Madhyantavibhaga, Mahayanasutra-lamkara, and the Abhisamaya-lamkara. These and shastras attributed to his brother Vasubhandu would be preserved, mostly in Tibet, but also in China where they would influence the doctine of the Fa-hsiang, or Chinese Yogacarin school.

Both Yogacarin and Madhayamaka shastras were transmitted to China, largely due to the efforts of Central-Asian scholar/translator Kumarajiva. Several Indian Buddhist schools were entirely transplanted to China with their Indian form more or less intact, including Kumarajiva’s "Three-Shastra School," based on Madhyamaka shastras by Nagarjuna and Aryadeva and a Yogacarin shastra by Vasubhandu.

1.Madhyamaka Shastra 2.Dvadashamukha Shastra 3.Shatika Shastra: 100 verses, 32 words each. By Vasubhandu.

The Satyasiddhi Shastra, written by Harivarman and translated by Kumarajiva,was the text upon which on which the Hinayana Satyasiddhi sect based its doctrine. It was a Hinayana variation of the Sunyata (emptiness) doctrine. The term is defined as perfectly establishing the real meaning of the Sutras."

,some of it to be inserted within the article's page.

 * -- 188.102.31.118 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Shastra


text:
Shatrughna

Shatrughna (शत्रुघ्न, ), also known as Ripudaman, is the younger brother of Rama, and King of Madhupura and Vidisha, in the Hindu epic Ramayana. He is considered as an incarnation of the Sudarshana Chakra of god Vishnu, and was married to Shrutakirti.

Shatrughna is the twin of Lakshmana. He is a loyalist of Bharata, just like Lakshmana is to Rama. Shatrughna appears as the 412th name of Vishnu in the Vishnu Sahasranama of the Mahabharata.

Etymology
The name Shatrughna is of Sanskrit origin. Shatru means 'enemy' and Ghna means 'kill'. His name means 'killer of enemies'.

Birth and early life
King Dasharatha of Ayodhya had three wives: Kausalya, Kaikeyi, and Sumitra. Shatrughan and his elder brother Lakshmana were born to Sumitra, while Rama and Bharata were born to Kausalya and Kaikeyi. In the Ramayana, he is described as an incarnation of Sudarshana Chakra.

Marriage to Shrutakirti

After Rama won the svayamvara of Sita, their marriage was fixed. King Dasharatha arrived in Mithila for his son's wedding and noticed that Lakshmana had feelings for Urmila, but according to tradition, Bharata and Mandavi were to marry first. King Dasharatha then arranged for Bharata to marry Mandavi and Shatrughna to marry Shrutakirti, allowing Lakshmana to marry Urmila. Ultimately, all four sisters married the four brothers, strengthening the alliance between the two kingdoms. Shatrughna and Shrutakirti had two sons named Subahu and Shatrughati.

Rama's exile

When Rama was exiled, Shatrughna dragged Kaikeyi's old nurse Manthara (who was responsible for poisoning the queen's mind against Rama) and tried to kill her, but he was restrained by Bharata, who felt that Rama would not approve. Bharata went to Rama and asked him to come back to Ayodhya, but Rama refused. Bharata ruled Ayodhya from Nandigram and was an excellent leader, acting as the very embodiment of dharma. Although Bharata was the king designate of Ayodhya during Rama's exile, it was Shatrughna who undertook of the administration of the whole kingdom during Rama's absence. Shatrughna was the only solace for the three queen mothers during the absence of Rama, Lakshmana, and Bharata from Ayodhya.

Rage against Manthara
Manthara appears only once in the Ramayana after Rama's banishment. Having been rewarded by Kaikeyi with costly clothing and jewels, she was walking in the palace gardens when Bharata and his half-brother Shatrughna came upon her. Seeing her, Shatrughna flew into a violent rage over Rama's banishment decided to attack her. Kaikeyi begged Bharata to save her, which he did, telling Shatrughna that it would be a sin to kill a woman, and that Rama would be furious with them both if he did such a thing. He relented and the brothers left, while Kaikeyi attempted to comfort Manthara.

Slaying of Lavanasura

Although he played a relatively minor role in the Ramayana, Shatrughna was important to the main story and goal of the epic. His chief exploit was the killing of Lavanasura, the demon King of Madhupura (Mathura), who was a nephew of Ravana, the King of Lanka, slain by Rama.

Lavanasura was the son of Madhu, the pious demon-king after whom the city of Madhupura was named. Madhu's wife and Lavanusara's mother Kumbhini was a sister of Ravana. Lavanasura was holder of the divine Trishula (Trident) of Lord Shiva, and nobody was able to kill him or prevent him from committing sinful activities.

Shatrughna begged Rama and his elder brothers to allow him the opportunity to serve them by killing Lavanasura. Shatrughna killed the demon with an arrow imbibed with the power of Vishnu. After Lavanasura's death, Rama crowned him King of Madhupura.

Death
Shatrughna divided his kingdom consisting of Madhupura and Vidisha between his sons Subahu and Shatrughati. After Rama, the seventh Avatar of Vishnu completed 11,000 years of perfectly pious rule upon earth, walked into the river Sarayu to return to his true and eternal Mahavishnu form, Bharata and Shatrughna also followed him into the river and later merged into Mahavishnu.

Assessment
Shatrughna was the youngest of the fourth brothers. He dedicated himself in the service of his brother, Bharata. When Bharata, decided to stay at Nandigram, Shatrughan wanted to accompany him. But on his brother's request, he stayed in Ayodhya and looked after the state as an administrator. Shatrughan also looked after all his three mothers.

Worship
In the Medak district of Telangana, there is a temple called Sri Kalyana Ramachandra Sannadhi that is dedicated to Shatrughna and Shrutakirti. This temple is the only one in India that has installed statues of Rama's brothers and their wives.

Another temples dedicated to him are as follow:
 * Shatrughna Temple at Payammal in Thrissur District of Kerala
 * Shatrughna Temple at Muni Ki Reti, Rishikesh
 * Shatrughna Temple near Kans-tila, Mathura, UP

Television

 * Sameer Rajda portrayed Shatrughna in the 1987 series Ramayan and the 1998 series Luv Kush.
 * Hitesh Kumar portrayed Shatrughna in the 1997 series Jai Hanuman.
 * Amit Pachori portrayed Shatrughna in the 2002 series Ramayan.
 * Lalit Negi portrayed Shatrughna in the 2008 series Ramayan.
 * Harshad Arora portrayed Shatrughna in the 2011 series Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev.
 * Nishant Kumar and Vansh Sayani portrayed Shatrughna in the 2015 series Sankat Mochan Mahabali Hanumaan.
 * Pratham Kunwar portrayed Shatrughna in the 2015 series Siya Ke Ram
 * Akhil Kataria portrayed Shatrughna in the 2018 series Ram Siya Ke Luv Kush
 * Samarthya Gupta portrayed Shatrughna in the 2024 series Shrimad Ramayan

Books

 * Shatrughna Charit by Ravindra Shukla 'Ravi', published in 2014.

title: Shatrughna


text:
Gargoyles (TV series)

Gargoyles (also known as Gargoyles: The Goliath Chronicles for season 3) is an animated television series produced by Walt Disney Television Animation, in collaboration with Walt Disney Animation Japan for its first two seasons and Nelvana for its final, and originally aired from October 24, 1994 to February 15, 1997. The series features a species of nocturnal creatures known as gargoyles that turn to stone during the day. After spending a thousand years in an enchanted petrified state, the gargoyles (who have been transported from medieval Scotland) are reawakened in modern-day New York City, and take on roles as the city's secret night-time protectors.

Gargoyles was noted for its relatively dark tone, complex story arcs, and melodrama; character arcs were heavily employed throughout the series, as were Shakespearean themes. The series also received favorable comparisons to Cybersix, Batman: The Animated Series, and X-Men. A video game adaptation and a spin-off comic series were released in 1995. The show's storyline continued from 2006 to 2009 in a comic book series of the same title, produced by Slave Labor Graphics, and was again revived by Dynamite Entertainment in 2022. In 2023, a live-action reboot for Disney+ was announced, to be produced by Atomic Monster.

Premise
"One thousand years ago, superstition and the sword ruled. It was a time of darkness. It was a world of fear. It was the age of gargoyles. Stone by day, warriors by night, We were betrayed by the humans we had sworn to protect, frozen in stone by a magic spell for a thousand years. Now, here in Manhattan, the spell is broken, and we live again! We are defenders of the night! We are gargoyles!"

The series features a species of nocturnal creatures known as gargoyles that turn to stone during the day, focusing on a clan led by Goliath. In 994, the clan lives in a castle in Scotland. Most are betrayed and killed by humans while petrified and the remainder are magically cursed to sleep—i.e., be frozen in stone form until the castle "rises above the clouds." A thousand years later in 1994, billionaire David Xanatos purchases the gargoyles' castle and has it reconstructed atop his New York skyscraper, the Eyrie Building, thus awakening Goliath and the remainder of his clan. While trying to adjust to their new world, they are aided by a sympathetic police officer named Elisa Maza and quickly come into conflict with the plotting Xanatos. In addition to dealing with the gargoyles' attempts to adjust to modern New York City, the series also incorporated various supernatural threats to their safety and to the world at large.

Episodes
A total of 78 half-hour episodes were produced.

The first two seasons aired in the Disney Afternoon programming block. The first season consisted of 13 episodes, including a five-part opening story. This season's episodes were almost entirely written by Michael Reaves and Brynne Chandler Reaves. The second season featured 52 episodes, and a long mid-season story arc dubbed by fans as "The Gargoyles World Tour" in which four of the main characters travel the world, encountering other Gargoyles and confronting various mystical and science-fictional dangers. The writing staff was greatly expanded for season two.

Following Disney's purchase of ABC in 1996, the third and final season aired during Saturday mornings on ABC as Gargoyles: The Goliath Chronicles. Behind the scenes, the animation producers and writers had almost completely changed from seasons one and two, while on-screen, the Gargoyles' relationship to the world changed considerably.

Voice cast
The voice cast featured several actors who are alumni of the Star Trek franchise, including Marina Sirtis and Jonathan Frakes (respectively, Deanna Troi and William Riker on Star Trek: The Next Generation), who were featured regularly as principal cast members. Other Star Trek actors had recurring roles on Gargoyles, including Michael Dorn (Worf on TNG and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), Kate Mulgrew (Kathryn Janeway on Star Trek: Voyager), Nichelle Nichols (Uhura on Star Trek: The Original Series), and Brent Spiner (Data on TNG); while Avery Brooks (Benjamin Sisko on DS9), Colm Meaney (Miles O'Brien on TNG and DS9), and LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge on TNG) made guest appearances.

Development
The series bears no creator credit, though there were several people who are responsible for the show's format. Michael Reaves, who wrote the first six episodes and was the primary writer/story editor of the show's first two seasons has described himself with respect to Gargoyles as "in on the ground floor [of] creating something iconic". Greg Weisman also describes himself as one of the creators of Gargoyles.

The series' first season was almost entirely written by the husband-and-wife team of Michael Reaves and Brynne Chandler Reaves, who wrote 12 of the 13 episodes; the remaining episode was written by Steve Perry. All three writers were just coming off having written extensively for Batman: The Animated Series (for which Reaves won an Emmy, and Chandler Reaves an Emmy nomination). Weisman officially joined the series as a co-producer with episode 6 (though he also oversaw earlier episodes in his capacity as a Disney executive), and did not have any writing credits on the show until the third season.

The first season was developed on a sliding schedule; each phase of developing the thirteen episodes, such as writing, storyboarding, and animating, was given a ten-month period, with significant overlap. After they had delivered the first thirteen episodes, the production team asked Buena Vista Television to pick up a second season with another thirteen; the show had not yet aired, but Buena Vista agreed for them to start work on six more episodes. Once the show started its weekly syndication run in 1994, it was quickly seen as successful both as a television program and for promoting toy sales, and Buena Vista pushed the show's team to make the second season 52 episodes so that they could run it daily starting in the 1995 television season. Weisman stated they were not prepared for this given their production methods and the lack of timing to get those episodes ready for a fall 1995 premiere, despite telling Buena Vista this several times. When Disney refused to back down from the 52-episode order, the team decided to expand fourfold to handle the additional episodes. The writing staff grew to include Reaves, Chandler Reaves, and Perry, as well as newcomers Lydia Marano, Cary Bates, Gary Sperling, Adam Gilad, Diane Duane and Peter Morwood, amongst others. For this season, story editing duties were handled on a rotating basis by Reaves, Chandler Reaves, Bates, and Sperling. Storylines expanded beyond the Manhattan setting and more characters were added to help create stories to fill the episode count. Weisman said that he had discussions with Michael Eisner of using Gargoyles as a starting point for an action-oriented universe within Disney, comparing this to how Warner Bros. owned DC Comics, and some second season episodes were used to set up potential hooks for these.

The second season finished with a definitive wrap-up story told over a series of final episodes. However, a third season was unexpectedly ordered—although the series order was reduced to thirteen episodes and moved to a Saturday morning slot. Around this point, Reaves, Chandler Reaves, Perry, and Sperling all left the show. Meanwhile, the reduced episode order was a result of two factors according to Weisman. The first was changes within Disney itself. The fallout from the death of Disney president Frank Wells led to the divide between Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Katzenberg left to form DreamWorks. Weisman's bosses, Gary Krisel and Bruce Cranston, who had been supportive of Gargoyles, also left with Katzenberg for Dreamworks. Further, internal pressure on Eisner from Roy E. Disney forced him to treat Gargoyles as part of the studio's older works, thus dropping the larger action universe plans, and leaving the show without any support. Secondly, as the second season aired, the highly-publicized trial of O. J. Simpson drew audiences away from Gargoyles often due to preemption from the trial's coverage. By the time the trial was over, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had become more powerful as a brand. At this point, the show staff did not think they were likely to get a third season (which is one reason why much of the writing staff moved on), but as Disney had just bought Capital Cities, the owners of the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network, they needed programming for its Saturday morning block. They therefore had the mostly new Gargoyles team develop thirteen more episodes for it, now calling the series The Goliath Chronicles. Returning writers included Marano, Bates, and Gilad; Weisman also made his debut as a writer with the season opener. Because the series was on broadcast stations rather than syndication, the show had to meet different Broadcast Standards and Practices which Weisman stated drastically limited his creativity. While he wrote the first episode and spoke of his concerns to Disney, Weisman has contended Disney had removed him from the team and assigned the rest of the show's run to Nelvana.

Many Shakespearean characters and stories found their way into the show's storylines, particularly those from Macbeth and A Midsummer Night's Dream. The series was also influenced by medieval Scottish history, as well as television shows ranging from Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears, to Hill Street Blues as well as Bonkers (in which Weisman himself co-produced). The latter in particular inspired the ensemble format of the series and the 30-second "Previously, on Gargoyles..." recap found at the beginning of later episodes. The former was an influence on the original comedy development of the show, which was subsequently made darker and more serious by first season writers Reaves, Chandler Reaves and Perry.

New York artist Joe Tomasini brought a suit against Disney, claiming that his copyrighted screenplay and character designs had been copied during the development and production of Gargoyles. The case was ultimately thrown out, after it was proven that Disney did not have access to Tomasini's creations.

In May 2020, Weisman said in an interview, "Gargoyles is still my baby. I don't own it. I don't get a dime off of it being on Disney Plus. And yet I'm so thrilled that it is, I'm thrilled that it represents a chance — even if it's a slim chance — to bring it back. I've always wanted to do more. I've got a timeline for the show that's 315 pages long. I've got notebooks and comp books full of ideas for it. Spin-off notions and all sorts of things. Literally, nothing would make me happier than to go back and do more Gargoyles."

Broadcast history
The first two seasons of Gargoyles aired in the Republic of Ireland on RTE Two on weekday afternoons from January 6 to April 1997.

In the United States, the series first reran on the USA Network, as part of their morning Action Extreme Team block. It later moved to Toon Disney (and later onto Jetix's lineup) and its successor Disney XD where it aired until 2012. ABC Family also aired the show for a brief time in 2004 as part of its weekday morning Jetix block.

VHS and Laserdisc
The five-episode pilot "Awakening", edited into a single movie under the title Gargoyles the Movie: The Heroes Awaken, was released on VHS and Laserdisc on January 31, 1995, by Buena Vista Home Video.

DVD releases
On June 25, 2013, Volume Two of Season Two was released.

Streaming
On October 14, 2019, it was confirmed that all 3 seasons of Gargoyles would be available for streaming on the Disney+ streaming service.

Reception
IGN ranked Gargoyles 45th place on its 2009 list of top 100 animated series, stating: "A decent success at the time, Gargoyles has maintained a strong cult following since it ended more than a decade ago". Hollywood.com featured it on their 2010 list of six cartoons that should be movies. UGO.com included it on their 2011 top list of legendary medieval and fantasy TV shows. Doug Walker, also known as the Nostalgia Critic, praised the show: "But in secret, I would be watching every one of them, because it was just that good. I don't know if it really changed anything in terms of kids' shows like Batman or Animaniacs, but it was certainly a welcome detour from what Disney usually did. It really stood on its own and created some really wonderful and really unique stories. Gargoyles is a blast from the past that is sure to live on in the future." Craig Tomashoff, of People Magazine, said "All the traditional, wholesome Disney elements are in place, from a Beauty and the Beast-like plot line to the gargoyles' old-fashioned sense of nobility and morality. The result is a show that isn't bad, with impressive animation." Elizabeth Rayne of SyFy praised the series, stating "Gargoyles isn't just a Gothic fairy tale. There is hidden magic where you'd least expect it to lurk in that crumbling castle and, later, the clock tower they stand sentinel at night after night, watching over the city that never sleeps… the rock-solid message about friendship and loyalty embedded into every episode is something… [And] you can't leave the warped humor of this series in the dark, either." The series hold a rare "100%" rating on the film critic site Rotten Tomatoes. Less favorable assessments of the series came from animation producer Bruce Timm, who dismissed Gargoyles as "kind of namby-pamby... with all that Celtic fantasy crap" in a 1999 interview and the animation blog Cartoon Brew, which cited the series as an example of the sort of "juvenile mediocrities" that are beloved by the nerd community.

Film adaptation
A live action film adaptation had been discussed by Disney since the beginning of the show's run. Todd Garner was the executive producer on a proposed project; having admired the series. Rick Baker was hired to create concept art for the characters and even made a maquette. Greg Weisman and Michael Reaves wrote a draft that adapted the five-part "Awakening" pilot, but it was rejected. Disney regular Jim Kouf was hired to pen a new draft that established Goliath as a Gaelic warrior named Goliath MacGrath who makes a deal with a good sorcerer to battle an evil one named Morgan. However, he and his men are cursed to "give up [their] flesh and blood and [their] heart will be turned to stone", and are promptly turned into gargoyles and turn to stone upon defeating Morgan. In modern day, the focus shifts to Alex Anderson, described as "Goliath's long-lost relative", who returns to New York City following the death of his father. He teams up with Detective Brenna, who is a stand-in for Elisa Maza, and meets the Gargoyles who must battle a revived Morgan. While Disney favored the script, the project was abandoned as it would have been expensive to produce and because the series had ended its run.

In July 2011, David Elliot and Paul Lovett of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra were hired to pen a film adaptation of Gargoyles. In June 2018, Jordan Peele pitched his own film version to Disney, but it was supposed to be picked up sooner or later.

Reboot
In October 2023, it was announced that a reboot is in development for Disney+. The series will be produced by James Wan through his Atomic Monster label with Gary Dauberman acting as showrunner.

Merchandise
Various merchandise released for the series included a series of 22 five-inch action figures (along with two vehicles and a castle playset) released by Kenner in 1995. A collectible card game, Gargoyles Stone Warriors Battle Card Game, was published by Parker Brothers in 1994. Other licensed merchandise included numerous other toys and figures, collectible trading card and sticker series, and a wide range of clothing items, books, art supplies, kitchen and bathroom items and supplies, clocks and watches, etc. A world based on the television series was initially considered for Kingdom Hearts, but the idea was scrapped.

In 2018, various Funko Pop Vinyl figurines was released. In August 2021, Ravensburger released the Disney Gargoyles: Awakening board game. Starting in 2021, NECA began producing Gargoyles-based merchandise, such a plush toys and figures of the characters. Quantum Mechanix also produced a line of Q-Fig statues of the Gargoyles characters, starting with Goliath and Demona in January 2021.

Disney Adventures and TV Guide
Eleven Gargoyles comic stories were created for the Disney Adventures magazine, first appearing in the November 1994 issue, with the final story being printed in the January 1997 issue. The editor of the comics was Heidi MacDonald, who was put in charge of the production of these comics. Greg Weisman had some involvement with the comic, with Heidi recalling a two hour story conference with him. He would corroborate this, stating, "I was involved. Just not on level of my SLG involvement."

Heidi would write one comic herself, "The Experts", and would also write a short Gargoyles comic for the October 19–25, 1996 issue of TV Guide, entitled "Be Afraid of the Dark".

Marvel
Eleven issues were produced under Marvel and released between February 1995 and December 1995. The series was canceled due to low sales and the overall plot is left unconcluded. Weisman was eventually hired to write for the comic, but Marvel cut the deal with Disney before his run could be produced. Weisman still had his unpublished script for the comic, and would eventually use it as issue #6 of the Gargoyles: Clan-Building SLG comic series. As of July 24, 2022, Dynamite Entertainment planned to republish these comics "at a later date."

Olé! Disney
In the thirteenth issue of the Spanish Disney comic series "Olé! Disney", a 44 page comic adaptation of the film compilation of the first five episodes "Heroes Awaken!", entitled "Gargoyles: Héroes Mitológicos", was produced. It was written by Regis Maine, illustrated by Jesús Redondo, and colored by Jean-Jacques Chagnaud. It was released in 1996. It would also be released in French and German, though no English release was ever made.

Slave Labor Graphics
On June 21, 2006, Slave Labor Graphics, in association with CreatureComics, began producing a new Gargoyles comic written by Greg Weisman. Weisman wrote the comic book series as a direct sequel to the first and second seasons, ignoring the third season and telling his preferred story in its place. The first two issues are an adaptation of Weisman's script of the first episode of The Goliath Chronicles named The Journey serving as the only link to that show.

In August 2008, Greg Weisman announced that, due to Disney increasing its licensing fees, Slave Labor Graphics would not be renewing its license of Gargoyles after it ran out on August 31, 2008. The final two issues of Bad Guys and four of Gargoyles were released in the comic trades collecting both series in August 2009. Weisman also stated that SLG president Dan Vado had not given up on the Gargoyles franchise and hoped to pursue the idea of Gargoyles graphic novels in the future. As of July 24, 2022, Dynamite Entertainment planned to republish these comics "at a later date."

Joe Books
On December 24, 2015, Aaron Sparrow revealed that Gargoyles was to be adapted into a cinestory comics series published by Joe Books Inc. Originally, the first volume was intended to be released on March 30, 2016, adapting the five-part "Awakening" episodes from the first season, and second volume would have adapted the next four episodes ("The Thrill of the Hunt", "Temptation", "Deadly Force", and "Enter MacBeth") following the pilot. However, on September 29, 2017, Joe Books Inc. confirmed that the cinestory has been cancelled.

Dynamite Entertainment
On July 22, 2022, a new ongoing Gargoyles comic written by Greg Weisman was announced that would be published by Dynamite Entertainment and depict "Season 4" of the TV series. The 18 issues produced under Slave Labor Graphics remain as the canonical third season instead of The Goliath Chronicles. On October 29, 2022, Dynamite Entertainment announced they received 100,000 pre-orders of the first issue, making it Dynamite's highest selling comic of the year. A one-shot Halloween special focusing on Brooklyn's son, Nashville, was released in October of 2023.

On April 20, 2023, Dynamite Entertainment announced that a spin-off title, Gargoyles: Dark Ages, had been green-lit. It was released in July 2023. Gargoyles: Dark Ages is set in the year 971, during the era when Hudson is still the leader of the Wyvern clan, depicting events that will lead to alliance between gargoyles and humans as they work together to repel impending dark forces. The comic is written by Greg Weisman and illustrated by Drew Moss.

On October 9, 2023, Dynamite Entertainment announced that the comics had been green-lit for a continuation under the title of Gargoyles: Quest, for release in January 2024. The focus would be Demona as the main character seeking to obtain the "New Keys to Power", a set of ancient, magical artifacts that could grant her unimaginable power in her crusade against humanity. The comic is written by Greg Weisman and illustrated by Pasquale Qualano.

Video games

 * The Handheld LCD game, titled Gargoyles – Night Flight, was released by Tiger Electronics in 1995 in China.
 * A Sega Genesis game, titled Gargoyles, was released by Disney Software in 1995.
 * During Disney D23 in 2022, an announcement trailer for a remastered version of the 1995 Sega Genesis game was released. Developed by Empty Clip Studios, it launched on October 19, 2023. It has updated visuals, achievements, and enhancements to the gameplay.
 * In Disney's mobile game Disney Heroes: Battle Mode, Goliath and Demona appear as playable characters.
 * In the mobile game Disney Sorcerer's Arena, Goliath, Demona, and Xanatos appear as playable characters.
 * In Disney Emoji Blitz app game, the characters appear as playable characters and NPCs.

Fan community
In 1997, Weisman began answering fan questions about the series in an online forum at Ask Greg, revealing, among other things, productions details about the series, in-universe details about the characters, and his plans for the property if it had not been cancelled or if he was able to revive it in the future. Among other revelations, Weisman has detailed spinoffs for the series that reached various stages of development, including Bad Guys (for which a leica reel and comics were produced), Gargoyles 2198, Timedancer, Pendragon, Dark Ages and The New Olympians.

Conventions
The Gathering of the Gargoyles was an annual fan convention which began in 1997 and ended in 2009. The Gathering featured several regular guests close to the Gargoyles franchise including Greg Weisman and voice actors Keith David and Thom Adcox. The Gathering has featured several recurring special events such as a radio play where attendees audition and take speaking roles, a masquerade ball where attendees dress up as their favorite character, an art show where the many artists within the fandom can display or sell their artwork. Weisman has in the past shown the leica reel of Bad Guys at Gatherings. Footage and interviews from the 2004 Gathering appears as an extra feature on the Season 1 DVD of the show.

CONvergence 2014 featured a Gargoyles related theme with many guests from the series including Greg Weisman, Thom Adcox, Marina Sirtis, C. Robert Cargill, Scott Lynch, Amy Berg, and Emma Bull. It is a four-day convention held in Bloomington, Minnesota over the Fourth of July weekend. It was done to celebrate the series' 20th anniversary.

References in other works
As a nod to members of the voice cast who worked on both series, the 2001 Pioneer LDC English dub of the anime 3×3 Eyes contains Gargoyles homage scenes. These include a homeless man humming the Gargoyles theme and a character who wonders "What could make claw marks in solid stone?" Shared actors included Brigitte Bako, Bill Fagerbakke, Thom Adcox-Hernandez, Keith David and Ed Asner.

The series finale of the 2017 DuckTales animated series, "The Last Adventure!", features an extended Gargoyles homage. During a battle, the character Manny the Headless Man-Horse is briefly turned to stone before transforming into his "true form", which heavily resembles a gargoyle. The sequence is accompanied by an excerpt from the Gargoyles theme tune, and Manny quotes Goliath's "I live again!" during his transformation, with Keith David providing his voice.

A drawing of Goliath made a cameo in the Amphibia episode "True Colors", which features David as the voice of King Andrias. Creator Matt Braly, who has expressed his love for Gargoyles, said the cameo was added in hopes of starting speculations of a multiverse of Disney Television Animation series, as the series is set in multiple universes. He also cited Gargoyles as an influence on Amphibia's ovearching story and voice work.

title: Gargoyles (TV series)


text:
Svayamvara

Svayamvara (स्वयंवर lit. 'self-choice' ) is a type of marriage mentioned in Hindu mythology where a woman chose a man as her husband from a group of suitors. The bride wishing to marry would select an auspicious time and venue and then broadcast her intentions. Kings typically sent messengers to outside lands, while commoners simply spread the news within the local community. On the appointed day, suitors would gather at the venue and declare their qualifications. The bride would place a garland on the man of her choice and a wedding ceremony was held immediately. However, this type of marriage is not attested in any Dharmaśāstra.

Etymology
Svayaṁ in Sanskrit means 'self' and vara means 'groom'.

Sati
Prajapati Daksha held a svayamvara ceremony for his daughter Sati in which he invited all deities except Shiva, disapproving him for his appearance despite the fact that Sati wished to marry him. Sati is believed to have meditated upon Shiva with all her concentration and garlanded the thin air in front of her, where Shiva appeared spontaneously and hence was chosen as her husband.

Sita
In the Hindu epic Ramayana, King Janaka proclaimed that Sita would be wed to the man who could lift and string the Pinaka (Shiva's bow), calling this feat vīrya śulka, meaning the cost to be paid by a suitor. Sita married Rama, the only man strong enough to lift and string the bow.

Kunti
King Kuntibhoja arranged a svayamvara for his adopted daughter Kunti in the Hindu epic Mahabharata. Many kings and princes from the Aryan region attended her svayamvara. Among them was Pandu, the king of Hastinapura. Kunti chose Pandu as her husband.

Draupadi
For Draupadi, the daughter of King Drupada of Panchala in the Mahabharata, prospective grooms had to hit a fish's eye with a bow and arrow. This fish was an image on a rotating wheel placed over a pan filled with oil. The many suitors had to aim using the reflection of the fish in the oil. Arjuna wins her hand in marriage by succeeding in this contest.

Damayanti
Another famous svayamvara from the Mahabharata is found in the story of Damayanti, who chose Nala for her husband, against the wishes of the gods.

Modern literature
The Bearded Prince tells the story of Princess Roopali, whose father holds a svayamvara for her to select her groom.

Roshani Chokshi's The Star-Touched Queen has the heroine Maya's father stage a svayamvara for her early in the novel.

Kitayun
The Shahnama of Ferdausi records a similar tradition in pre-Islamic Iran, of one Kitayun, eldest daughter of the Emperor of Constantinople, selecting the Iranian Gushtasp. With a view to procure a husband for one of his daughters, the Byzantine emperor determined to hold a grand assembly of illustrious and wise men for her to see and select from. She did not find a suitable husband in the first assembly, so a second one was held, where she placed the crown on Gushtasp's head. Gushtasp, also known as Vishtaspa, returned to Iran with his bride and was crowned King.

"As per the custom of Rum, when a princess reached marriageable age, all the princes and nobles would gather in a hall where the princess would enter with her handmaidens and would select one of the princes to be her husband."

Rum (literally "Rome") was the common name used for the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire by Middle Eastern people.

title: Svayamvara


text:
British Science Association

The British Science Association (BSA) is a charity and learned society founded in 1831 to aid in the promotion and development of science. Until 2009 it was known as the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA). The current Chief Executive is Katherine Mathieson. The BSA's mission is to get more people engaged in the field of science by coordinating, delivering, and overseeing different projects that are suited to achieve these goals. The BSA "envisions a society in which a diverse group of people can learn and apply the sciences in which they learn." and is managed by a professional staff located at their Head Office in the Wellcome Wolfson Building. The BSA offers a wide variety of activities and events that both recognize and encourage people to be involved in science. These include the British Science Festival, British Science Week, the CREST Awards, Huxley Summit, Media Fellowships Scheme, along with regional and local events.

Foundation
The Association was founded in 1831 and modelled on the German Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte. It was founded during post-war reconstruction after the Peninsula war to improve the advancement of science in England. The prime mover (who is regarded as the main founder) was Reverend William Vernon Harcourt, following a suggestion by Sir David Brewster, who was disillusioned with the elitist and conservative attitude of the Royal Society. Charles Babbage, William Whewell and J. F. W. Johnston are also considered to be founding members. The first meeting was held in York (at the Yorkshire Museum) on Tuesday 27 September 1831 with various scientific papers being presented on the following days. It was chaired by Viscount Milton, president of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, and "upwards of 300 gentlemen" attended the meeting. The Preston Mercury recorded that those gathered consisted of "persons of distinction from various parts of the kingdom, together with several of the gentry of Yorkshire and the members of philosopher societies in this country". The newspaper published the names of over a hundred of those attending and these included, amongst others, eighteen clergymen, eleven doctors, four knights, two Viscounts and one Lord.

From that date onwards a meeting was held annually at a place chosen at a previous meeting. In 1832, for example, the meeting was held in Oxford, chaired by Reverend Dr William Buckland. By this stage the Association had four sections: Physics (including Mathematics and Mechanical Arts), Chemistry (including Mineralogy and Chemical Arts), Geology (including Geography) and Natural History.

During this second meeting, the first objects and rules of the Association were published. Objects included systematically directing the acquisition of scientific knowledge, spreading this knowledge as well as discussion between scientists across the world, and to focus on furthering science by removing obstacles to progress. The rules established included what constituted a member of the Association, the fee to remain a member, and the process for future meetings. They also include dividing the members into different committees. These committees separated members into their preferred subject matter, and were to recommend investigations into areas of interest, then report on these findings, as well as progress in their science at the annual meetings.

Additional sections were added throughout the years by either splitting off part of an original section, like making Geography and Ethnology its own section apart from Geology in 1851, or by defining a new subject area of discussion, such as Anthropology in 1869.

A very important decision in the Association's history was made in 1842 when it was resolved to create a "physical observatory". A building that became well known as the Kew Observatory was taken on for the purpose and Francis Ronalds was chosen as the inaugural Honorary Director. Kew Observatory quickly became one of the most renowned meteorological and geomagnetic observatories in the world. The Association relinquished control of the Kew Observatory in 1871 to the management of the Royal Society, after a large donation to grant the observatory its independence.

In 1872, the Association purchased its first central office in London, acquiring four rooms at 22 Albemarle Street. This office was intended to be a resource for members of the Association.

One of the most famous events linked to the Association Meeting was an exchange between Thomas Henry Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce in 1860 (see the 1860 Oxford evolution debate). Although it is often described as a "debate", the exchange occurred after the presentation of a paper by Prof Draper of New York, on the intellectual development of Europe with relation to Darwin's theory (one of a number of scientific papers presented during the week) and the subsequent discussion involved a number of other participants (although Wilberforce and Huxley were the most prominent). Although a number of newspapers made passing references to the exchange, it was not until later that it was accorded greater significance in the evolution debate.

Electrical standards
One of the most important contributions of the British Association was the establishment of standards for electrical usage: the ohm as the unit of electrical resistance, the volt as the unit of electrical potential, and the ampere as the unit of electrical current. A need for standards arose with the submarine telegraph industry. Practitioners came to use their own standards established by wire coils: "By the late 1850s, Clark, Varley, Bright, Smith and other leading British cable engineers were using calibrated resistance coils on a regular basis and were beginning to use calibrated condensers as well."

The undertaking was suggested to the BA by William Thomson, and its success was due to the use of Thomson's mirror galvanometer. Josiah Latimer Clark and Fleeming Jenkin made preparations. Thomson, with his students, found that impure copper, contaminated with arsenic, introduced significant extra resistance. The chemist Augustus Matthiessen contributed an appendix (A) to the final 1873 report that showed temperature-dependence of alloys.
 * The natural relation between these units are clearly, that a unit of electromotive force between two points of a conductor separated by a unit of resistance shall produce unit current, and that this current in a unit of time convey a unit quantity of electricity.

The unit system was "absolute" since it agreed with previously accepted units of work, or energy:
 * The unit current of electricity, in passing through a conductor of unit resistance, does a unit of work or its equivalent in a unit of time.

Other
The Association introduced the British Association (usually termed "BA") screw threads, a series of screw thread standards in sizes from 0.25 mm up to 6 mm, in 1882. The standards were based on the metric system, although they had to be re-defined in imperial terms for use by UK industry. The standard was modified in 1884 to restrict significant figures for the metric counterpart of diameter and pitch of the screw in the published table, as well as not designating screws by their number of threads per inch, and instead giving an approximation due to considerable actual differences in manufactured screws.

In 1878 a committee of the Association recommended against constructing Charles Babbage's analytical engine, due to concerns about the current state of the machine's lack of complete working drawings, the machine's potential cost to produce, the machine's durability during repeated use, how and what the machine will actually be utilized for, and that more work would need to be done to bring the design up to a standard at which it is guaranteed to work.

The Association was parodied by English novelist Charles Dickens as 'The Mudfog Society for the Advancement of Everything' in The Mudfog Papers (1837–38).

In 1903, microscopist and astronomer Washington Teasdale died whilst attending the annual meeting.

Perception of science in the UK
The Association's main aim is to improve the perception of science and scientists in the UK. Membership is open to all.

At the beginning of the Great Depression, the Association's focus began to shift their purpose to account for not only scientific progress, but the social aspects of such progress. In the Association's 1931 meeting, the president General Jan Christiaan Smuts ended his address by the proposal of linking science and ethics together but provided no means to actuate his ideas. In the following years, debate began as to whom the responsibilities of scientists fell upon. The Association adopted a resolution in 1934 that dedicated efforts to better balance scientific advancement with social progress.

J.D. Bernal, a member of the Royal Society and the British Association, wrote The Social Function of Science in 1939, describing a need to correctly utilize science for society and the importance of its public perception. The idea of the public perception of science was furthered in 1985 when the Royal Society published a report titled The Public Understanding of Science. In the report, a committee of the Royal Society determined that it was scientists' duty to communicate to and educate the public. Lord George Porter, then president of the Royal Society, British Association, and director of the Royal Institution, created the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science, or COPUS, to promote public understanding of science. Professor Sir George Porter became the president in September 1985. He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1967 along with Manfred Eigen, and Ronald George Wreyford Norrish. When asked about the scientific literacy of Britain, he stated that Britain was the least educated country compared to all the other advanced countries. His idea to solve this problem would be to start scientific education for children at the age of 4. He says his reason for such an early age is because that is the age when children are the most curious, and implementing science at that age will help them gain curiosity towards all disciplines of science. When asked why public ignorance to science matters, his response was"It matters because among those who are scientifically illiterate are some of those who are in power, people who lead us in politics, in civil service, in the media, in the church, often in industry and sometimes even in education. Think, for example, about the enormous influence of scientific knowledge on one's whole philosophy of life, even one's religion. It is no more permissible for the archbishops of today, who advise their flocks on how to interpret the Scriptures, to ignore the findings of Watson and Crick, than it was right for clerics of the last century to ignore the work of Darwin. Science today is all-pervasive. Without some scientific and technical education, it is becoming impossible even to vote responsibly on matters of health, energy, defense or education. So unless things change, we shall soon live in a country that is backward not only in its technology and standard of living but in its cultural vitality too. It is wrong to suppose that by foregoing technological and scientific education we shall somehow become a nation of artists, writers or philosophers instead. These two aspects of culture have never been divorced from each other throughout our history. Every renaissance, every period that showed a flowering of civilization, advanced simultaneously in the arts and sciences, and in technology too."

Sir Kenneth Durham, former director of research at Unilever, on becoming president in August 1987 followed on from Sir George Porter saying that science teachers needed extra pay to overcome the scarcity of mathematics and physics teachers in secondary schools, and that "unless we deal with this as matter of urgency, the outlook for our manufacturing future is bleak". He regretted that headmasters and careers masters had for many years followed 'the cult of Oxbridge' because "it carried more prestige to read classics at Oxbridge and go into the Civil Service or banking, than to read engineering at, say, Salford, and go into manufacturing industry". He said that reporting of sciences gave good coverage to medical science, but that "nevertheless, editors ought to be sensitive to developments in areas such as solid state physics, astro-physics, colloid science, molecular biology, transmission of stimuli along nerve fibres, and so on, and that newspaper editors were in danger of waiting for disasters before the scientific factors involved in the incidents were explained.

In September 2001 Sir William Stewart, as outgoing president, warned that universities faced "dumbing down" and that"we can deliver social inclusiveness, and the best universities, but not both from a limited amount of money. We run the risk of doing neither well. Universities are underfunded, and must not be seen simply as a substitute for National Service to keep youngsters off the dole queue... [Adding,] scientists have to be careful and consider the full implications of what they are seeking to achieve. The problem with some clever people is that they find cleverer ways of being stupid."

In the year 2000, Sir Peter Williams had put together a panel to discuss the shortage of physics majors. A physicist called Derek Raine had stated that he has had multiple firms call him up asking for physics majors. The report they made stated that it is critical that they increase the number of physics teachers, or it will have a detrimental effect on the number of future engineers and scientists.

British Science Festival
The Association's major emphasis in recent decades has been on public engagement in science. Its annual meeting, now called the British Science Festival, is the largest public showcase for science in the UK and attracts a great deal of media attention. It is held at UK universities in early September for one week, with visits to science-related local cultural attractions.

The 2010 Festival, held in Birmingham with Aston University as lead University partner, featured a prank event: the unveiling of Dulcis foetidus, a fictional plant purported to emit a pungent odour. An experiment in herd mentality, some audience members were induced into believing they could smell it. The Festival has also been the home to protest and debate. In 1970 there were protestors over the use of science for weapons.

Science Communication Conference
The Association organised and held the annual Science Communication Conference for over ten years. It was the largest conference of its kind in the UK, and addressed the key issues facing science communicators. In 2015, the BSA introduced a new series of smaller events for science communicators, designed to address the same issues as the Science Communication Conference but for a more targeted audience.

British Science Week
In addition to the British Science Festival, the British Science Association organises the British Science Week (formerly National Science & Engineering Week), an opportunity for people of all ages to get involved in science, engineering, technology and maths activities, originating as the National Week of Science, Engineering and Technology.

The Association also has a young people's programme, the CREST Awards which seeks to involve school students in science beyond the school curriculum, and to encourage them to consider higher education and careers in science.

Huxley Summit

Named after Thomas Huxley, the Huxley Summit is a leadership event run by the British Science Association, where 250 of the most influential people in the UK are brought together to discuss scientific and social challenges that the UK faces in the 21st century and to develop a link between scientists and non-scientists to ensure that science can be understood by society as a whole. On 8 November 2016, the British Science Association held the very first Huxley Summit at BAFTA, London. The theme of the summit was "Trust in the 21st Century" and how that would affect the future of science, innovation, and business.

 Media Fellowship Schemes

The British Science Association's Media Fellowship provides the opportunity for practicing scientists, clinicians, and engineers to spend a period of time working at media outlets such as the Guardian, BBC Breakfast or The Londonist. After their time with the media placement, the fellows attend the British Science Festival which will offer these practitioners valuable working experience with a range of media organizations along with learning from a wide range of public engagement activities and be able to network with academics, journalists and science communicators.

CREST Awards
CREST Awards is the British Science Association's scheme to encourage students aged 5–19 to get involved with STEM projects and encourage scientific thinking. Awards range from Star Awards (targeted at those aged 5–7) to Gold Awards (targeted to those aged 16–19). Overall, 30,000 awards are undertaken annually. Many students who do CREST Awards, especially Silver and Gold Awards which require 30 and 70 hours of work respectively, enter competitions like the UK Big Bang Fair.

Patrons and Presidents of the British Science Association
Traditionally the president is elected at the meeting usually held in August/September for a one-year term and gives a presidential address upon retiring. The honour of the presidency is traditionally bestowed only once per individual. Written sources that give the year of presidency as a single year generally mean the year in which the presidential address is given. In 1926/1927 the association's patron was King George V and the president was his son Edward, Prince of Wales. The vice-presidents for the Leeds meeting at this time included City of Leeds Alderman Charles Lupton and his brother, The Rt. Hon. the Lord Mayor of Leeds Hugh Lupton. The husband of the brothers' first cousin once removed - Lord Airedale of Gledhow -  was also a vice-president at the Leeds meeting.

 * 1831: Charles Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, 5th Earl Fitzwilliam, statistician.
 * 1832: Rev. William Buckland, palaeontologist
 * 1833: Rev. Adam Sedgwick, geologist
 * 1834: Sir Thomas Makdougall Brisbane, astronomer
 * 1835: Rev. Humphrey Lloyd, physicist
 * 1836: Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 3rd Marquess of Lansdowne, statistician
 * 1837: William Cavendish, 2nd Earl of Burlington, Chancellor of the University of London
 * 1838: Algernon Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Naval officer
 * 1839: Canon William Vernon Harcourt, FRS
 * 1840: John Campbell, 2nd Marquess of Breadalbane, F.R.S.
 * 1841: Rev. William Whewell, polymath and philosopher of science
 * 1842: Lord Francis Egerton
 * 1843: William Parsons, 3rd Earl of Rosse, astronomer
 * 1844: Rev. George Peacock, mathematician
 * 1845: Sir John F. W. Herschel, astronomer & polymath
 * 1846: Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, geologist
 * 1847: Sir Robert Harry Inglis
 * 1848: Spencer Compton, 2nd Marquess of Northampton, geologist
 * 1849: Rev. Thomas Romney Robinson, astronomer

 * 1850: Sir David Brewster, physicist
 * 1851: Sir George Biddell Airy, Astronomer Royal
 * 1852: Colonel Edward Sabine, Vice-president of the Royal Society
 * 1853: William Hopkins FGS, mathematician and geologist
 * 1854: Dudley Ryder, 2nd Earl of Harrowby FRS
 * 1855: George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll FRS, FRSE, FGS
 * 1856: Charles D. B. Daubeny MD, FRS, botanist
 * 1857: Rev. Humphrey Lloyd FRS, FRSE, physicist
 * 1858: Sir Richard Owen MD, FLS, FGS, naturalist
 * 1859: Albert, Prince Consort
 * 1860: John Wrottesley, 2nd Baron Wrottesley FRAS, astronomer
 * 1861: Sir William Fairbairn, civil engineer
 * 1862: Rev. Robert Willis FRS, civil engineer
 * 1863: William Armstrong, engineer and inventor
 * 1864: Sir Charles Lyell, geologist
 * 1865: John Phillips FRS, geologist
 * 1866: William Robert Grove FRS
 * 1867: Walter Montagu Douglas Scott, 5th Duke of Buccleuch FRS
 * 1868: Joseph Dalton Hooker MD, FRS, botanist
 * 1869: Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet FRS, mathematical physicist
 * 1870: Thomas Henry Huxley FRS, biologist
 * 1871: Sir William Thomson FRS, FRSE, physicist
 * 1872: William Benjamin Carpenter MD, FRS
 * 1873: Alexander William Williamson FRS, chemist
 * 1874: John Tyndall FRS, physicist
 * 1875: Sir John Hawkshaw FRS, civil engineer
 * 1876: Thomas Andrews MD, FRS, chemist
 * 1877: Allen Thomson MD, FRS, FRSE
 * 1878: William Spottiswoode FRS, mathematician
 * 1879: George James Allman FRS, naturalist
 * 1880: Sir Andrew Crombie Ramsay FRS, geologist
 * 1881: John Lubbock, 1st Baron Avebury MP, FRS
 * 1882: C. W. Siemens FRS, FRSA, engineer
 * 1883: Arthur Cayley, mathematician
 * 1884: John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh FRS, FRAS, FGS, physicist
 * 1885: Lyon Playfair, 1st Baron Playfair MP, FRS, FRSE
 * 1886: Sir John William Dawson CMG, geologist
 * 1887: Sir Henry Enfield Roscoe, chemist
 * 1888: Sir Frederick Bramwell, civil engineer
 * 1889: Sir William Henry Flower CB, anatomist
 * 1890: Sir William Huggins FRS, FRAS, FBAS, astronomer
 * 1891: Sir Frederick August Abel FRS
 * 1892: Sir Archibald Geikie, geologist
 * 1893: Sir John Scott Burdon-Sanderson, medical doctor
 * 1894: Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury FRS
 * 1895: Captain Sir Douglas Strutt Galton FRS, civil engineer
 * 1896: Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister
 * 1897: John Evans, archaeologist
 * 1898: Sir William Crookes FRS, chemist and physicist
 * 1899: Sir Michael Foster, physiologist

 * 1900: Sir William Turner, anatomist and vice-chancellor from 1903 to 1916 of the University of Edinburgh
 * 1901: Arthur William Rücker FRS, physicist
 * 1902: Sir James Dewar FRS, chemist and physicist
 * 1903: Sir Norman Lockyer FRS, astronomer and physicist
 * 1904: Arthur James Balfour MP, FRS
 * 1905: Sir George Darwin, older brother of Francis
 * 1906: Sir Ray Lankester, zoologist
 * 1907: Sir David Gill CB, astronomer
 * 1908: Sir Francis Darwin, son of Charles
 * 1909: Sir J. J. Thomson, physicist
 * 1910: Rev. Professor Thomas George Bonney, geologist
 * 1911: Sir William Ramsay, chemist
 * 1912: Edward Albert Schäfer, physiologist
 * 1913: Sir Oliver Lodge, physicist
 * 1914: William Bateson, geneticist
 * 1915: Sir Arthur Schuster, physicist
 * 1916–1919: Sir Charles Algernon Parsons, engineer
 * 1916: Sir Arthur Evans, archaeologist
 * 1920: William Abbott Herdman, oceanographer
 * 1921: Sir T. Edward Thorpe, chemist
 * 1922: Professor Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, neuroscientist
 * 1923: Professor Sir Ernest Rutherford, physicist
 * 1924: Major-General Sir David Bruce, microbiologist
 * 1925: Sir Horace Lamb, physicist
 * 1926: Edward, Prince of Wales
 * 1927: Prof Sir Arthur Keith, anatomist and anthropologist
 * 1928: Sir William Henry Bragg, physicist
 * 1929: Sir Thomas Henry Holland, geologist
 * 1930: Frederick Orpen Bower, botanist
 * 1931: General Jan Christiaan Smuts FRS
 * 1932: Sir James Alfred Ewing, physicist and vice-chancellor from 1916 to 1929 of the University of Edinburgh
 * 1933: Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Nobel Prize winning (1929) biochemist who discovered vitamins
 * 1934: Sir James Hopwood Jeans, astronomer
 * 1935: William Whitehead Watts, geologist
 * 1936: Josiah Stamp, 1st Baron Stamp, statistician
 * 1937: Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton, evolutionary biologist
 * 1938: Robert Strutt, 4th Baron Rayleigh, physicist and son of Nobel Prize–winning John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh
 * 1939–1946: Sir Albert Seward, geologist
 * 1946–1947: Sir Henry Dale, physiologist
 * 1947–48: Sir Henry Tizard, chemist and inventor
 * 1948–49: Sir E. John Russell, agriculturalist
 * 1949–50: Sir Harold Hartley, physical chemist

 * 1950–51: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
 * 1951–52: Archibald Vivian Hill, physiologist
 * 1952–53: Sir Edward Victor Appleton, Nobel Prize winning (1947) physicist
 * 1953–54: Edgar Adrian, 1st Baron Adrian, neuroscientist
 * 1954–55: Sir Robert Robinson, chemist
 * 1955–56: Sir Raymond Priestley, geologist and vice-chancellor from 1938 to 1952 of the University of Birmingham
 * 1956–57: Patrick Blackett, Baron Blackett, physicist
 * 1957–58: Alexander Fleck, 1st Baron Fleck, industrial chemist
 * 1958–59: Sir James Gray, zoologist
 * 1959–60: Sir George Paget Thomson, physicist
 * 1960–61: Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, primatologist and palaeoanthropologist
 * 1961–62: Sir John Cockcroft CBE, Nobel Prize winning (1951) physicist
 * 1962–63: Eric Ashby, Baron Ashby, llVice-chancellor from 1950 to 1959 of Queen's University Belfast
 * 1963–64: Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain, neurologist
 * 1964–65: Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood, Nobel Prize winning (1956) chemist
 * 1965–66: Sir Joseph Hutchinson, biologist
 * 1966–67: Willis Jackson, Baron Jackson of Burnley, technologist and electrical engineer
 * 1967–68: Dame Kathleen Lonsdale, physicist who discovered the cyclic nature of benzene in 1929
 * 1968–69: Sir Peter Medawar, zoologist and immunologist
 * 1969–70: Alexander R. Todd, Baron Todd, Nobel Prize winning (1957) biochemist known for nucleotides and coenzymes
 * 1970–71: Sir Alexander Cairncross, economist
 * 1971–72: Sir Vivian Fuchs FRS, explorer
 * 1972–73: Sir Kingsley Charles Dunham, geologist and mineralogist
 * 1973–74: Sir John Kendrew CBE, Nobel Prize winning (1962) biochemist who discovered the structure of myoglobin
 * 1974–75: Sir Bernard Lovell, astronomer
 * 1975–76: John Baker, Baron Baker OBE, structural engineer known for limit state design
 * 1976–77: Sir Andrew Huxley, Nobel Prize winning (1963) physiologist, known for discovering nerve action potentials
 * 1977–78: Prof Dorothy Hodgkin, Nobel Prize winning (1964) chemist
 * 1978–79: Frank Kearton, Baron Kearton OBE,
 * 1979–80: Frederick Dainton, Baron Dainton
 * 1980–81: HRH the Duke of Kent
 * 1981–82: Prof Sir Charles Frederick Carter, economist
 * 1982–83: Sir Basil John Mason CB, general from 1965 to 1983 of the Met Office
 * 1983–84: Sir Alastair Pilkington, inventor
 * 1984–85: Prof Sir Hans Kornberg, biochemist
 * 1985–86: Prof George Porter, Baron Porter of Luddenham, Nobel Prize winning (1967) chemist
 * 1986–87 Sir Kenneth Durham, Chairman from 1982 to 1986 of Unilever
 * 1987–88: Sir Walter Bodmer, geneticist
 * 1988–89: Sir Samuel Edwards, physicist
 * 1989–90: Claus Moser, Baron Moser, director from 1967 to 1978 of the Central Statistical Office
 * 1990–91: Sir Denis Rooke
 * 1991–92 Sir David Attenborough
 * 1992–93: Sir David Weatherall, haemotologist
 * 1993–94: Dame Anne McLaren, IVF biologist
 * 1994–95: Sir Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow FRS, astrophysicist
 * 1995–96: Ronald Oxburgh, Baron Oxburgh, geologist and Rector of Imperial College London from 1993 to 2000
 * 1996–97: Sir Derek Roberts CBE, electronics engineer, and Provost of UCL from 1989 to 1999
 * 1997–98 Prof Colin Blakemore, neuroscientist
 * 1998–99: Sir Richard Sykes, biochemist and chief executive from 1993 to 1997 of Glaxo
 * 1999–2000: Anne, Princess Royal

 * 2000–01: Sir William Stewart, Government Chief Scientific Adviser from 1990 to 1995
 * 2001–02: Sir Howard Newby, sociologist
 * 2002–03: Sir Peter Williams CBE, physicist
 * 2003–04: Dame Julia Higgins
 * 2004–05: Prof Robert Winston, Lord Winston of Hammersmith
 * 2005–06: Frances Cairncross CBE, economist
 * 2006–07: John Browne, Lord Browne of Madingley
 * 2007–08: Sir David King, Government Chief Scientific Adviser from 2000 to 2008
 * 2009–10: Robert May, Baron May of Oxford

 * 2010–11: David Sainsbury, Lord Sainsbury of Turville
 * 2011–12: Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell FRS, FRSE
 * 2012–13: John Krebs, Baron Krebs FRS
 * 2013–14: Lisa Jardine CBE, historian
 * 2014–15: Sir Paul Nurse FRS, President from 2010 to 2015 of the Royal Society, and joint winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (for work on cell cycle division)
 * 2015–16 Dame Athene Donald FRS, physicist and master since 2014 of Churchill College, Cambridge
 * 2016–17: Dame Nancy Rothwell DBE DL FRS FMedSci FBPhS, physiologist and president and vice-chancellor of the University of Manchester
 * 2017–18: Dame Uta Frith FRS, developmental psychologist
 * 2018–19: Professor Jim Al-Khalili FRS, physicist and broadcaster
 * 2019–20: Professor Alice Roberts anatomist and broadcaster

 * 2020–21: Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham
 * 2021–22: Maggie Aderin-Pocock
 * 2022–23: Anne-Marie Imafidon

List of annual meetings

 * 1831 (1st meeting) York, England.
 * 1832 (2nd meeting) Oxford, England.

 * 1833 (3rd meeting) Cambridge, England.
 * 1834 (4th meeting) Edinburgh, Scotland.
 * 1835 (5th meeting) Dublin, Ireland.
 * 1836 (6th meeting) Bristol, England.
 * 1837 (7th meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 1838 (8th meeting) Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
 * 1839 (9th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1840 (10th meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 1841 (11th meeting) Plymouth, England.
 * 1842 (12th meeting) Manchester.
 * 1843 (13th meeting) Cork, Ireland.
 * 1844 (14th meeting) York, England.
 * 1845 (15th meeting) Cambridge, England.
 * 1846 (16th meeting) Southampton, England.
 * 1847 (17th meeting) Oxford, England.
 * 1848 (18th meeting) Swansea, Wales.
 * 1849 (19th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1850 (20th meeting) Edinburgh, Scotland.
 * 1851 (21st meeting) Ipswich, England.
 * 1852 (22nd meeting) Belfast, Northern Ireland.
 * 1853 (23rd meeting) Hull, England.
 * 1854 (24th meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 1855 (25th meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 1856 (26th meeting) Cheltenham, England.
 * 1857 (27th meeting) Dublin, Ireland.
 * 1858 (28th meeting) Leeds, England.
 * 1859 (29th meeting) Aberdeen, Scotland.
 * 1860 (30th meeting) Oxford, England.
 * 1861 (31st meeting) Manchester, England.
 * 1862 (32nd meeting) Cambridge, England.
 * 1863 (33rd meeting) Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
 * 1864 (34th meeting) Bath, England.
 * 1865 (35th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1866 (36th meeting) Nottingham, England.
 * 1867 (37th meeting) Dundee, Scotland.
 * 1868 (38th meeting) Norwich, England.
 * 1869 (39th meeting) Exeter, England.
 * 1870 (40th meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 1871 (41st meeting) Edinburgh, Scotland.
 * 1872 (42nd meeting) Brighton, England.
 * 1873 (43rd meeting) Bradford, England.
 * 1874 (44th meeting) Belfast, Northern Ireland.
 * 1875 (45th meeting) Bristol, England.
 * 1876 (46th meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 1877 (47th meeting) Plymouth, England.
 * 1878 (48th meeting) Dublin, Ireland.
 * 1879 (49th meeting) Sheffield, England.
 * 1880 (50th meeting) Swansea, Wales.
 * 1881 (51st meeting) York, England.
 * 1882 (52nd meeting) Southampton, England.
 * 1883 (53rd meeting) Southport, England.
 * 1884 (54th meeting) Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
 * 1885 (55th meeting) Aberdeen, Scotland.
 * 1886 (56th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1887 (57th meeting) Manchester, England.
 * 1888 (58th meeting) Bath, England.
 * 1889 (59th meeting) Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
 * 1890 (60th meeting) Leeds, England.
 * 1891 (61st meeting) Cardiff, Wales.
 * 1892 (62nd meeting) Edinburgh, Scotland.
 * 1893 (63rd meeting) Nottingham, England.
 * 1894 (64th meeting) Oxford, England.
 * 1895 (65th meeting) Ipswich, England.
 * 1896 (66th meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 1897 (67th meeting) Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
 * 1898 (68th meeting) Bristol, England.
 * 1899 (69th meeting) Dover, England.
 * 1900 (70th meeting) Bradford, England.
 * 1901 (71st meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 1902 (72nd meeting) Belfast, Northern Ireland.
 * 1903 (73rd meeting) Southport, England.
 * 1904 (74th meeting) Cambridge, England.
 * 1905 (75th meeting) Various, South Africa.
 * 1906 (76th meeting) York, England.
 * 1907 (77th meeting) Leicester, England.
 * 1908 (78th meeting) Dublin, Ireland.
 * 1909 (79th meeting) Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
 * 1910 (80th meeting) Sheffield, England.
 * 1911 (81st meeting) Portsmouth, England.
 * 1912 (82nd meeting) Dundee, Scotland.
 * 1913 (83rd meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1914 (84th meeting) Various, Australia.
 * 1915 (85th meeting) Manchester, England.
 * 1916 (86th meeting) Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
 * 1917 No meeting
 * 1918 No meeting
 * 1919 (87th meeting) Bournemouth, England.
 * 1920 (88th meeting) Cardiff, Wales.
 * 1921 (89th meeting) Edinburgh, Scotland.
 * 1922 (90th meeting) Hull, England.
 * 1923 (91st meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 1924 (92nd meeting) Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
 * 1925 (93rd meeting) Southampton, England.
 * 1926 (94th meeting) Oxford, England.
 * 1927 (95th meeting) Leeds, England.
 * 1928 (96th meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 1929 (97th meeting) Various, South Africa.
 * 1930 (98th meeting) Bristol, England.
 * 1931 (99th meeting) London, England.
 * 1932 (100th meeting) York, England.
 * 1933 (101st meeting) Leicester, England.
 * 1934 (102nd meeting) Aberdeen, Scotland.
 * 1935 (103rd meeting) Norwich, England.
 * 1936 (104th meeting) Blackpool, England.
 * 1937 (105th meeting) Nottingham, England.
 * 1938 (106th meeting) Cambridge, England.
 * 1939 (107th meeting) Dundee, Scotland.
 * 1940 No meeting
 * 1941 No meeting
 * 1942 No meeting
 * 1943 No meeting
 * 1944 No meeting
 * 1945 No meeting
 * 1946 No full meeting (An abbreviated one-day meeting was held in London on 20 July 1946; Sir Henry Dale was elected the new president.)
 * 1947 (109th meeting) Dundee, Scotland.
 * 1948 (110th meeting) Brighton, England.
 * 1949 (111th meeting) Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
 * 1950 (112th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1951 (113th meeting) Edinburgh, Scotland.
 * 1952 (114th meeting) Belfast, Northern Ireland.
 * 1953 (115th meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 1954 (116th meeting) Oxford, England.
 * 1955 (117th meeting) Bristol, England.
 * 1956 (118th meeting) Sheffield, England.
 * 1957 (119th meeting) Dublin, Ireland.
 * 1958 (120th meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 1959 (121st meeting) York, England.
 * 1960 (122nd meeting) Cardiff, England.
 * 1961 (123rd meeting) Norwich, England.
 * 1962 (124th meeting) Manchester, England.
 * 1963 (125th meeting) Aberdeen, Scotland.
 * 1964 (126th meeting) Southampton, England.
 * 1965 (127th meeting) Cambridge, England.
 * 1966 (128th meeting) Nottingham, England.
 * 1967 (129th meeting) Leeds, England.
 * 1968 (130th meeting) Dundee, Scotland.
 * 1969 (131st meeting) Exeter, England.
 * 1970 (132nd meeting) Durham, England.
 * 1971 (133rd meeting) Swansea, Wales.
 * 1972 (134th meeting) Leicester, England.
 * 1973 (135th meeting) Canterbury, England.
 * 1974 (136th meeting) Stirling, Scotland.
 * 1975 (137th meeting) Guildford, England.
 * 1976 (138th meeting) Lancaster, England.
 * 1977 (139th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1978 (140th meeting) Bath, England.
 * 1979 (141st meeting) Edinburgh, Scotland.
 * 1980 (142nd meeting) Salford, England.
 * 1981 (143rd meeting) York, England.
 * 1982 (144th meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 1983 (145th meeting) Brighton, England.
 * 1984 (146th meeting) Norwich, England.
 * 1985 (147th meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 1986 (148th meeting) Bristol, England.
 * 1987 (149th meeting) Belfast, Northern Ireland.
 * 1988 (150th meeting) Oxford, England.
 * 1989 (151st meeting) Sheffield, England.
 * 1990 (151st meeting) Swansea, Wales.
 * 1991 (152nd meeting) Plymouth, England.
 * 1992 (153rd meeting) Southampton, England.
 * 1993 (154th meeting) Keele, England.
 * 1994 (155th meeting) Loughborough, England.
 * 1995 (156th meeting) Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
 * 1996 (157th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 1997 (158th meeting) Leeds, England.
 * 1998 (159th meeting) Cardiff, Wales.
 * 1999 (160th meeting) Sheffield, England.
 * 2000 (161st meeting) London, England.
 * 2001 (162nd meeting) Glasgow, Scotland.
 * 2002 (163rd meeting) Leicester, England.
 * 2003 (164th meeting) Salford, England.
 * 2004 (165th meeting) Exeter, England.
 * 2005 (166th meeting) Dublin, Ireland.
 * 2006 (167th meeting) Norwich, England.
 * 2007 (168th meeting) York, England.
 * 2008 (169th meeting) Liverpool, England.
 * 2009 (170th meeting) Guildford, England.
 * 2010 (171st meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 2011 (172nd meeting) Bradford, England.
 * 2012 (173rd meeting) Aberdeen, Scotland.

 * 2013 (174th meeting) Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
 * 2014 (175th meeting) Birmingham, England.
 * 2015 (176th meeting) Bradford, England
 * 2016 (177th meeting) Swansea, Wales
 * 2017 (178th meeting) Brighton, England
 * 2018 (179th meeting) Hull, England
 * 2019 (180th meeting) Coventry, England

Structure
The organisation is administered from the Wellcome Wolfson Building at the Science Museum, London in South Kensington in Kensington and Chelsea, within a few feet of the northern boundary with the City of Westminster (in which most of the neighbouring Imperial College London is resident).

Video clips

 * British Science Association YouTube channel

title: British Science Association


text:
Tara (Hindu goddess)

 is the Hindu goddess of felicity and sanguineness. She is also known as the "Wisdom Goddess" in Nepal and Tibet. Tara is the consort of Hindu god Brihaspati, the god of planet Jupiter. According to some Puranas, Tara sired or mothered a child named Budha, the god of Mercury through Chandra and had a son named Kacha through Brihaspati.

Story
Tara was the wife of Brihaspati, the guru of Devas. According to historians, it is mentioned as her husband spent most of his time with the problems and matters of Devas, she felt being ignored by her husband. One day, Chandra, the moon god visited Brihaspati. There he saw Tara and was captivated by her beauty. Chandra used Hypnosis on Tara.

Brihaspati was infuriated and demanded Chandra to return his wife. Chandra told Brihaspati that Tara was happy and satisfied with him. He enquired as to how an old man could be the husband of a young woman. This made Brihaspati more annoyed and he warned Chandra for battle. Indra and other Devas gathered to fight a war. Chandra was not ready to give Tara back and he took help from the Asuras and their preceptor, Sukra. The Devas were assisted by Shiva and his companions. Devas and Asura were about to fight a war, but Brahma, the creator god, stopped them and convinced Chandra to return Tara. In some versions, Shiva stopped the war.

After some time, Brihaspati found out that Tara was pregnant and questioned her who the father of the child was. But Tara remained silent. After the boy was born, both Chandra and Brihaspati claimed to be his father. Tara revealed it was Chandra's son. The boy was named Budha.

title: Tara (Hindu goddess)


text:
Talk:Semiring

The Mathworld URL doesn't work for me (right now).

Is importing this from Mathworld (a) OK and (b) worth it?

Charles Matthews 09:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Merge with Rig (algebra)
Every reference on semirings that I can find (besides the always dubious MathWorld) defines them to include 0 and 1. Which means this is the same concept as that defined at rig (algebra). Moreover, I can find numerous references on semirings but almost none on rigs. Is this a term that is really used? In any case it seems that "semiring" is more common and "rig" should be redirected here and not the other way around. Comments, objections? -- Fropuff 23:54, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Isn't rig used by John Baez? And isn't that the only obvious reason it made it into WP?

Charles Matthews 02:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ahh... there's a theory. I think you may be right. Baez appears to use rig frequently. See "This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics" 121, 185, 191. His own comment on the matter:. In any case I think I will merge the articles. -- Fropuff 03:47, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Problem with skew lattice example
As an example of a semiring, a skew lattice on a ring is stated. But the operation a+b+ba-aba-bab is not associative in general, thus a skew lattice may not be a semiring. I am not an expert so I did not delete this - if you are an expert and agree, please delete it. --90.180.188.114 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with semiring definition
This property appears in the semiring definition: 4. Multiplication by 0 annihilates R: 0·a = a·0 = 0 But according to the ring definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) that property is not required. And the only difference between a ring and a semiring is the lack of inverse. This property does not appear in Mathworld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Semiring.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melopsitaco (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rings satisfy this property automatically, it follows from distributivity and the existence of additive inverses, so that’s why it is not stated there explicitly. Mathworld is well known for numerous errors, and the definition we have is properly sourced.—Emil J. 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

—

But doesn't this annihilation axiom 4 also follow here, for semirings, from distributivity and additive identity?:

distributivity: a(b+c) = ab + ac assume c=0: => a(b+0) = ab + a0 additive identity: (b+0) = 0 => a(b)  = ab + a0

If a0 != 0 (axiom 4), distributivity is unsatisfied.

NB: I'm really asking. I'm not an expert -- 20:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Not quite. The additive identity law says that x plus zero is x for all x, but you've got b plus zero being equal to zero (it should be equal to b). Hdgarrood (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think $$b +0=0$$ is just a typo; correcting it to $$b+0=b$$ still leads to the conclusion $$ab = ab + a0$$. The real problem is that we cannot conclude from this that $$a0 = 0$$ holds: for that we would need that $$\forall x,y: x+y=x \implies y=0$$, i.e., a form of cancellation property. Proving that normally is done by subtracting $$x$$ from both sides, which we can't do here. Indeed, I believe a counterexample can be obtained by modifying the extended natural numbers slightly: change the rule $$0\cdot \infty=0$$ to $$0\cdot \infty=\infty$$. The result seems to satisfy all axioms of a semiring as given here, except for the final one (0 does not annihilate the whole ring)  BlackFingolfin (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Should bibliography be changed to references?
Should bibliography section be changed to a reference section? Or should the footnotes be made into the reference section while the general sources be left as bibliography?

In general, of the pages I have seen on wikipedia, there does not seem to be any standard way to categorize references. I've seen "footnotes", "references", "bibliography", "notes", etc. as headers and with different content under them. Pages also have different combinations of there headers; some having "notes" and "references" with "notes" being references that are footnotes, some use "notes" for non-reference notes only, etc.

Is there some standard way of doing this that is documented? Shouldn't there be?

This is my first post in any talk section coming after my first edit of an article (this one) so I apologize for my ignorance. I added the only non-reference footnote to this page and that is what sparked this question. For now I will add a "notes" section just so there isn't a random non-bibliographic note in the "bibliography" section... Dosithee (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 * This is covered by the Manual of Style, especially at Manual_of_Style/Layout. "Bibliography" is an alternative for "References".  Deltahedron (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

General Question on Math Standarization
Are there really no standard definitions of mathematical terms? Everything from the definition of range to semiring seems to have different definitions depending on the source. And there is also the issue of multiple names for the same thing like "one-one (or 1-1) or one-to-one for injective, and one-one mapping or one-to-one mapping for injection." This seems like a large issue in terms of its effects on clarity and thus learning and expresion. It seems there must have been some conference or something on this at some point but I cant find any.

Dosithee (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Do you mean standard in the world at large, or on Wikpedia? In either case the answer is no, but a general question like this would be better addressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.  Deltahedron (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tropical semiring
There are several defs of that in various sources but the source cited [only] gives a 3rd one [not given in this wiki article], with the whole extended real line: ! JMP EAX (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The text and the table on that page are incconsistent: the definition in the article is that of the text. It would be good to find a reliable source that sorted out the various definitions that exist in the literature.  Deltahedron (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)  Meanwhile, I have expanded the text with reference for the other definition.  Deltahedron (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Star semiring
"To make * actually act like the usual Kleene star, a more elaborate notion of complete star semiring is needed." is a little clumsy, as it implies the object is to make the asterate as close as possible to the Kleene star. Deltahedron (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reordered the material to present the more complicated algebraic structure towards the end, and moved some text to Monoid which seems a more natural target for the redirect Complete monoid which was otherwise circular. Deltahedron (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have considered that the "more complicated" isn't really so. There's a reason these notions are introduced in a certain order in WP:RS. I have reverted your "improvement" as it completely messed up the logic of the presentation, giving overpowered examples for trivial notions like for simply adding a unary operation. JMP EAX (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An algebraic structure with additonal operations may reasonably be considered "more complicated". Please explain the reason for the order of the presentation in the source as you see it, and what the logic of the presentation is that you feel has been messed up.  Deltahedron (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In this edit (for which the edit summary is unhelpful):
 * Two sources are removed from the example "tropical seminring". Why?
 * Sourced material on continuous semirings and their relation to complete semirings is removed. Why?  Removing sourced material requires an explanation beyond the unhelpful edit summary given.
 * The phrase "a completely unsurprising example" is added. Which source is that in?  Or is it a personal opinion?
 * Two sourced examples of star semirings that are not complete star semirings are removed. Why?  Having examples of the wider class that are not in the more restrictive class aids the reader's understanding.
 * The third part of WP:BRD is called for here. Deltahedron (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already explained above why I've reverted you. I can be convinced to move complete semiring before/out of the * section, but you should (1) add examples of that are not relating to * and (2) list some of their properties not related to *. Otherwise it's a completely "huh?" section by itself. In general, your writing style in this article and in your other contributions/articles on this topic (e.g. rational series) is extremely bad for a general purpose encyclopedia. You just dump definitions is a dry manner with no attempt to explain why they are introduced. Note that most sources don't do that. My PhD advisor had a somewhat racist/nationalist joke about Russian mathematicians in relation to this issue in general, but I can't quite repeat it here. I do wonder however if you ever had to teach classes yourself anywhere and what if you did what kind of evaluations you've got. Because it's pretty clear to me that you write a very bad/unapproachable way, especially for a venue like Wikipedia. You also seem to have some trouble grokking not necessarily this topic but the ones connected to it like rational language. After you admitted at WP:COMPSCI that you didn't do a good job with this topic area, you've suddenly found a huge interest in improving my work. Allow me to very skeptical of your "improvements". You can go back and the trivial examples you wrote if you insist, but I don't think they add anything to the article except length. As for the continuous semirings, why are you introducing them? Again you didn't say and gave zero examples thereof. There are a bazillion other defs that one can give for classes of semirings that are more interesting, like residuated semirings etc. JMP EAX (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Speculations about other editors' teaching careers or nationality do not help improve the article.  Comments on other editors' perceived levels of expertise in a different area do not help improve the article.  In this context it may be helpful for you to review No personal attacks policy on derogatory comments.  Comments on other editors' style improve the article only insofaras they are relevant to the material actually added to the article.  If you find that material is dry, then improve it, or suggest improvements.  Deleting material you do not like the style of is much less helpful than disucssing and improving it.
 * This is how I would propose to lay out material on a subclass of semirings, in this case complete star semirings. Firstly, define complete semirings and star semirings, each with a set of examples  Finally define complete star semirings, again with a set of examples.   In this case continuous semirings are closely related to complete semirings, so it makes sense to include them: an additional motivation here is that this emphasises the relationship between partial orders defined on the semirings and the star structure: for example, Conway uses the order approach to prove Kleene's theorem in his 1971 book.  Of course there are choices here.  For example, should the examples of complete star semirings be introduced early on, or only after the last definition?  There's no right answer to that.  I would like to see examples of a concept which are not examples of the richer structure, folloewd by examples of the richer structure.  Examples of continuous semirings would have been helpful, but as some editors have said, there is no deadline.  In my view, a definition without an example is hugely preferable to no definition at all: the reader in search of information will still be able to see what sort of thing it is and find references to further resources on the subject.  That, it seems to me, is what an encyclopaedia is for.
 * The current state of the material seems to me to be intended to do one thing only, which is to introduce complete star semirings in a way which makes the star operation as close as possible to the traditional Kleene star. This is not the only approach.  A reason for the axiomatisation and separation out of the various properties is the entirely reasonable mathematical activity of finding out which of the properties of the Kleene star derive from what assumptions.  On the way, various structures of interest emerge, and various theorems are proved about the relationships between them.  That may not suit the point of view that star semirings are "really" or "completely unsurprisingly" the original formal languages: but that's only a point of view; it isn't correct, or at least, isn't the whole truth; and it isn't helpful to the reader of the encyclopaedia.    Deltahedron (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Continous semirings. I propose to reinstate this material.  It is sourced, it introduces a relevant concept, and links it to a concept already discussed in the article.  I suggest that only very strong reasons would justify its removal.  Deltahedron (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: The little satisfaction I get from improving an article like this is simply not worth the hassle [for me] of dealing with someone like you and this kind of "dialogue". So you can lord over this and formal power series and rational series and weighted automata and weighted rational expression all you want from now on. I'm done editing this topic area, thanks to you, Deltahedron. You WP:WIN. And your obstinacy here is just like the one I saw at Talk: Rigi (software), where you insisted on an irrelvant, low-quality source that adds nothing to that article. But at least there the impact of your obstinancy on the content of that article was minimal. I see you are also very fond of long logorheas and rules lawyering on the dramaz boards just like here. I'd frankly have to be pretty insane [by my standards of sanity] to continue arguing on the interwebz with someone who writes stuff like this. Next time you complain (on Jimbo's talk or elesewhere) how some editors' behavior drives away other editors away, take a look in the mirror first. JMP EAX (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear you do not wish to continue editing this article: your perspective would have been a welcome complement, and of course you are free to resume editing it at any time: I hope that you will. I remain interested in hearing your views on the specific editing points I posed earlier, and welcome any discussion on how to improve this article.  Much of this comment does not appear to relate to that, unfortunately, and I don't propose to address it here.  Deltahedron (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dioid
The usual definition of dioid is an idempotent semiring: that is, a+a=a. However, Gondran and Minoux (2008) p.28 define them in such a way that N,+,× is a dioid. Is there a usefdul terminolgy current for the two defnitions? Deltahedron (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Endo a semiring?
I'm pretty sure that Endo isn't a full semiring, as composition doesn't distribute left over point wise addition:

f _ = 1

g _ = 1

h _ = 0

f. (g + h) = (f . g) + (f . h)

1 = 1 + 1

It's a near-semiring, I think. Doisin (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think possibly there is some textbook somewhere that lists Endo as a semiring, possibly because they don't include left distribution as a semiring law. (And that's why the correction keeps getting removed). It might be useful to include the short example above to demonstrate that Endo isn't a semiring according to this article's definition of semirings.

Doisin (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Endomorphisms of a commutative monoid do form a semiring. Your f is not an endomorphism. 67.86.129.121 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Missing Properties Section?
I've noticed that most articles on algebraic structures have a section called properties, where commonly useful consequences of the structure's axioms are listed. Maybe someone familiar with semi-ring theory could add such a section?

Rgs
Rings without additive inverses or multiplicative identities. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternative definition?
Hi, is there such a thing as a near-miss of a ring that is not necessarily a ring because it doesn't necessarily have additive invertibility, but it does have additive cancellation? In other words, a + c = b + c implies a = b, even though c need not have an inverse. Then the multiplicative annihilator property could still be proven instead of assumed. OneWeirdDude (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semiring of sets
What's this definition doing in this article? If there's any relationship between the set-theoretic structure and the algebraic structure it should be clarified, otherwise this should be moved elsewhere. viiii (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed.—Emil J. 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Semiring