text:
Cut Spelling

Cut Spelling is a system of English-language spelling reform which reduces redundant letters and makes substitutions to improve correspondence with the spoken word. It was designed by Christopher Upward and was for a time being popularized by the Simplified Spelling Society. The resulting words are 8–15% shorter than standard spellings. The name Cut Spelling was coined by psychologist Valerie Yule.

Unlike some other proposed reforms, Cut Spelling does not attempt to make English spelling phonemic, but merely attempts to remove many of the unneeded difficulties of the current spelling. Cut Spelling differs from "traditional orthography" mainly in removing letters from words and makes relatively few substitutions of letters compared with other proposed reforms. According to its designers, this allows readers accustomed to traditional orthography to get used to Cut Spelling fairly quickly and easily, while still giving learners of the language a much-simplified and more systematic spelling system.

Rules
Cut Spelling uses three main reduction rules to convert traditional spellings into "cut spellings":

 * 1) Letters irrelevant to pronunciation. This rule deletes most silent letters, except when these letters (such as "magic e") help indicate pronunciation. Omitting or including the wrong silent letters are common errors. Examples: peace → pece, except → exept, plaque → plaq, blood → blod, pitch → pich.
 * 2) Cutting unstressed vowels. English unstressed syllables are usually pronounced with the vowel schwa, which has no standard spelling, but can be represented by any vowel letter. Writing the wrong letter in these syllables is a common error ─ for example, writing seperate for separate. Cut Spelling eliminates these vowel letters completely before approximants ( and ) and nasals (, , and ). In addition, some vowel letters are dropped in suffixes, reducing the confusion between -able and -ible. Examples: symbol → symbl, victim → victm, lemon → lemn, glamour/glamor → glamr, permanent → permnnt, waited → waitd, churches → churchs, warmest → warmst, edible → edbl.
 * 3) Simplifying doubled consonants. This rule helps with another of the most common spelling errors: failing to double letters (accommodate and committee are often misspelled) or introducing erroneously doubled letters. Cut Spelling does not eliminate all doubled letters: in some words (especially two-syllable words) the doubled consonant letter is needed to differentiate from another differently pronounced word (e.g., holly and holy). Examples: innate → inate, necessary → necesary, spell → spel.

Substitution rules
The Cut Spelling system also uses three substitution rules:
 * 1) The digraphs gh and ph become f when pronounced . Examples: draught → draft, sulphur → sulfr, photograph → fotograf.
 * 2) The letter g is changed to j when pronounced  or . Examples: judge → juj, rouge → ruje.
 * 3) The combinations ig and igh are changed to y when pronounced . Examples: flight → flyt, sign → syn.

The Cut Spelling Handbook also lists optional additional rules such as replacing ch with k when it makes the sound, respelling as y unusual patterns that make the  diphthong, as well as replacing -tion, -cian, -sion, -ssion, etc. with -shn.

Examples
"'Wen readrs first se Cut Spelng, as in this sentnce, they ofn hesitate slytly, but then quikly becom acustmd to th shortnd words and soon find text in Cut Spelng as esy to read as traditional orthografy, but it is th riter ho realy apreciates th advantajs of Cut Spelng, as many of th most trublsm uncertntis hav been elimnated.'"

"Th Space Race was th competition between th United States and th Soviet Union, rufly from 1957 to 1975. It involvd th efrts by each of these nations to explor outr space with satlites, to be th 1st to send there a human being and to send mand and unmand missions on th Moon with a safe return of th humans to Erth."

"Tho its roots lie in erly roket tecnolojy and in th intrnationl tensions foloing World War II, th Space Race efectivly began with th Soviet launch of Sputnik 1 on 4 October 1957. Th term orijnated as an analojy to th arms race. Th Space Race became an importnt part of th cultrl and tecnolojicl rivalry between th USSR and th US during th Cold War. Space tecnolojy became a particularly importnt arena in this conflict, both because of its militry applications and du to th sycolojicl benefit of rasing morale."

"Rokets hav intrestd sientists and amatrs for at least 2,100 years, and Chinese soldirs used them as wepns as erly as th 11th century. Russian sientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky theorized in th 1880s on multi-staje, liquid fuel rokets which myt reach space, but only in 1926 did th American Robert Goddard desyn a practicl liquid-fuel roket."

 * Note: The example above assumes British pronunciation by abbreviating "military" to "militry".

title: Cut Spelling


text:
Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Wa and Chin states, Kurdistan, and Azawad
Neither of the these states are listed here, and though the latter does ot control major cities, other ones do have more or less of control over their claimed territory and functional government. I suggest they should be added to the article. 176.36.187.17 (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Just curious, have these states even formally declared independence. I’m aware Azawad did back in 2012, but are they still claiming independence. Kurdistan has not declared independence, and is an autonomous region within Iraq, and Rojava (AANES) also doesn’t seek independence. I don’t believe that Wa & Chin have formally declared independence as sovereign states as far as I’m aware. NaniEmperor (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Puntland status
Unlike the Gaza Strip and the regions of Iraq and Syria that are prevented from uniting due to situations such as wars, Puntland is an autonomous federal entity that declared itself temporarily independent, but in Somalia there is a declared intention of rupture (although temporary). Jvbignacio9 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I have reverted the inclusion. The temporary nature is a good sign that this is not secession. "We are not declaring independence", so it does not fit on this list. CMD (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Rfc on removing Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article
Should we remove Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose removing Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article?

Prior to this discussion, I had removed the main category of this article from Armenia, China, and Israel articles before being reverted for the Israel one where the editor cited this article as to why Israel has limited recognition. However, I would argue that none of these countries have limited recognition. The articles list two theories as to what counts for a country having recognition. Wikipedia is not run by theories. We shouldn't be beholden to ideas or opinions and label them as fact when there is no universally agreed-upon rule of thumb or rule regarding which of these two theories should be the basis of a nation holding recognition. What we should constitute a nation having recognition is when a majority of countries have recognized another formally. Perhaps a two-thirds majority rule in which a nation has been recognized by two-thirds of nations would mean the current roster of UN member states having widespread recognition.

We should bear in mind that diplomatic relations are a form of recognition, but recognition doesn't imply bilateral relations. Despite territorial disputes between two or more claimants, there is recognition of the political entity as a nation and thus shouldn't be the basis of how recognition is built if they have been recognized by a majority of states.

 * Armenia: Not recognized only by Pakistan. One UN member out of 193 member states. One single nation not recognizing Armenia can't make Armenia as having limited recognition. Even Armenia recognizes Pakistan as a nation and has done so for many years. Even two non-member states of the UN, Holy See/Vatican City and Palestine recognize Armenia. So Armenia has vast recognition.
 * China: Not recognized by 11 UN member states and Vatican City. Only 12 entities don't recognize China and instead have recognized or have relations with Taiwan. Taiwan has limited recognition as the vast majority of countries have formal relations with China.
 * Cyprus: Same with Armenia. One UN member state, Turkey, out of the 193 member states does not recognize Cyprus as a nation. Cyprus maintains relations with both the Vatican and Palestine. Cyprus has vast recognition.
 * Israel: According to the article, 28 UN members don't recognize Israel. But the rest do. From the International recognition of Israel article, "As of December 2020, it has received diplomatic recognition from 165 (or 85%) of the 193 total UN member states". This means that a vast majority of countries recognize Israel. Therefore, it can't be limited if the majority of countries recognize Israel.
 * Palestine: Similar to Israel. From the International recognition of the State of Palestine article, "As of April 2024, 140 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states have recognized the State of Palestine." Therefore, Palestine has received recognition from the majority of countries.
 * North Korea: As stated in the article, South Korea, which maintains a long dispute as to who is the legitimate Korean nation/republic, is the sole UN member that does not recognize North Korea. It maintains relations with 157 countries if the Foreign Relations of North Korea article is up to date. And all 157 are UN members. By this same logic, the article could state South Korea has limited recognition because North Korea views South Korea as an illegitimate Korean nation/republic and itself as the sole claimant of all land in the Korean peninsula including what is all of South Korea. So since both countries view the entire peninsula as belonging to them, we should ask ourselves why SK is not on this list. This could be a case of NPOV violation which NK is added probably due to a negative image, which NK does have, but the addition of North Korea tied with the land dispute with SK not included makes it a suspicious case of perhaps a viewpoints of bias. Wikipedia should not choose one over the other as it would imply bias and bias is what we have to avoid especially on a topic such as this.

I hope I made my arguments clear as to why these six countries should be removed from this article and why the mainspace category for this article does not apply to their respective articles. Please let me know if there is anything I missed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * The RFC question needs to be neutral so to make things work and not confuse the bot, sign the question at the top and then add a Discussion section heading right after that and put the rest of your argument there as a !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Might have been a good idea to have had an RFCbefore discussion, you could still do that by removing the RFC tags, wouldn't prevent you from running the RFC at a later time if you still wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been a bugbear of mine for a time tho no-one else seems bothered by it. From my perspective, all of the countries in this article should be listed in Category:States with limited recognition but they are not although they were once upon a time if memory serves.
 * Then folk on the cat side started arguing that this one or that one, China say, should not be in the cat, apparently based on the way the countries are divided into sections in this article.
 * Now you want to remove some from this page so that those will also disappear from the cat and leave those that only the cat folk believe are truly "limited".
 * It's not really supposed to be that way imo, it's the other way around, the cats should follow this page.
 * I haven't gone into all the history about how this page definition of limited came about but it was a very long and involved process that included a discussion of the issues you raise. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * This RfC is not neutral, therefore, I suggest you retract it and start a discussion (per WP:RFCBEFORE). M.Bitton (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * No, but a general question about the pages notability may be in order... Why do we need to have a stand alone list for a topic which doesn't lend itself well to a list? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The articles list two theories as to what counts for a country having recognition." This is not true. There is only one 'theory' being used for what counts as recognition, it's country 1 saying they recognise country 2. (The academically discussed concept of "de facto recognition" is not something that lends itself to this sort of binary categorisation.) The second paragraph is a similar red herring, a lack of diplomatic relations is not used in this article. South Korea is not on the list because there was a lot of excitement about this story that spread around en.wiki. In my view unwarranted excitement that should be reverted, but it certainly wasn't because of any particular viewpoint bias. CMD (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Comment Since the Rfc expired and did not have a consensus. I still think these countries should be removed from this article, there hasn't been a counter argument to the nations listed and South Korea has been added to the list, but South Korea doesn't have limited recognition just because North Korea doesn't formally recognize it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed- they should be removed. It's ultimately very deceiving to readers to keep near universally recognized countries on this list. Archives908 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you wish to redefine "limited" in that case? In other words, how would you amend the List of states with limited recognition? Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion- but perhaps we can redefine the inclusion criteria to include states with less than 80% recognition by UN member states. For those who may reject this recommendation, please offer an alternate suggestion. Archives908 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A limit to its recognition literally gives it limited recognition. Before thinking about counterarguments, the argument has to address it is trying to redefine the words being used. CMD (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redefining the inclusion criteria would solve this dilemma. If we make clear that "limited" means X, then we can remove countries like South Korea and Armenia which have near universal recognition, and keep states like Kosovo which do not have near universal recognition. It's that simple. Archives908 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not answering the question, redefine how? Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I responded above. Archives908 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why 80%? Why not 70, or 90? Or some other arbitrary %? Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a rough number- open to all suggestions. Archives908 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is simpler still to not try and redefine words at some arbitrary and so far unexplained point. CMD (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would only be difficult if we make a mountain out of a molehill over this. A reminder to all that nobody is obligated to participate in this discussion if it is to "difficult" for them. The issue of redefining the inclusion criteria has been brought up for years and its about time this is concretely addressed- whether it's a challenging conversation or not. Archives908 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep your reminders to yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep your rudeness to yourself. Archives908 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You started it, I finished it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've been nothing but constructive here- you've been hostile and negative for no apparent reason. Keep it focused to content, thanks :) Archives908 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did, until you started with a snarky comment. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not snarky at all :) Please stay focused on content, thanks so much! Archives908 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And its "too difficult" not "to". Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * No Mr Vili   talk  05:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

No sensible argument has been put forward, oppose any change to inclusion criteria.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say the the criteria should be a simple majority of recognition by UN members. Perhaps 1/3. For instance, Armenia isn't recognized by only one UN member, Pakistan, as stated in the article. But one nation isn't enough to validate the idea that Armenia has limited recognition. Armenia is not Taiwan where countries have shifted recognition and formal relations to China. Palestine is recognized by 140 of the 193 United Nations. And since the October 7 war, four more European countries have moved to give it formal recognition. All four are UN member states. So if the count is now 144 out of 193, then forty-nine countries not having formal recognition with Palestine doesn't make them in the majority of 1/3. One-third of 193 is 64 percent. These 49 countries are not in the majority, and the map on the International recognition of the State of Palestine article shows the majority of Asia, Africa (minus two countries), and all of South America recognizing Palestine as a nation. All of which comprises more than 2/3 of the world. I hope my math was correct in terms of percentages. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we do that then its just not a list of states with limited recognition any longer... its now a list of states with a simple majority of recognition by UN members which is a completley differenty and largely unrelated standard (why is UN membership status relevent for example). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because countries with majority recognition are members of the UN. Can anyone prove that any of the countries in the list above have limited recognition? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes they can, but apparently you don't think that having limited recognition validates the idea that they have limited recognition so you are unlikekt to be swayed... Anything less than complete recongition is limited recongition... 1% and 99% are both limited. This is an issue with your comprehension, not the sources or the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're now making this an issue on the user not with the subject matter. So Wikipedia is at the behest of the foreign policy of countries because they are the sole nation that doesn't recognize another? How is 99 percent limited? That's like saying 99 votes out of 100 total casted for a candidate for office is limited because they didn't get all of them. That's nonsense. By this logic, these countries being on this is in OR. Limited refers to a small amount, not a lot. The countries that I believe should be removed don't have this issue. You also questioned the notability of the article. Do you still think this topic doesn't do well as a list?--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even Limited Recoigntion WikiProject doesn't have these countries included other than Palestine which is interesing to point out. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not interesting at all, the Wikiproject has picked a specific focus where it felt it could contribute (now dead of course, like most Wikiprojects). If you read this article you'll see that the countries listed are divided into different groupings. CMD (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest issue is the wording of the article. We have two theories of recognition as stated in the criteria section in regards to UN member states, one where it states a state has limited recognition if not recognized by all UN members and then another that says a state has recognition if recognized by one UN member state. But then the list of these six countries supports the former rather than the latter. Even though, most UN member states recognize these six. So we have two conflicting elements here. So let's forget my original RFC and try to figure out if the way the article is written has to change. Because this is what I think is causing the conflict here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The criteria section bullets are to limit potential entries ("criteria for inclusion on this list is limited to") to those on List of sovereign states. From that wider list, this sublist includes all those who "lack recognition from at least one UN member state". CMD (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither theory of recognition includes the United Nations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First set out what the scope of this page should be - and then figure out the correct wording. If we want to list countries that are not 100% recognized by all UN member states, then that should be reflected in the title. If we want to list countries that truly have "limited" (ie restricted/sparse/little) recognition, then that should be reflected in the title - and the content of the page. Lacking 1 recognition because of some dispute is really something of a different order than having barely any recognition, such as Abkhazia, or few recognition such as Western Sahara. In a reasonable sense - limited would be a minority. Although a recognition rate around half (ie Kosovo) could be qualified as limited as well. It translates into not being a member of the UN, while countries like China, Israel, Armenia and Cyprus are full-fledged members of the UN --> which would be an argument to delist them. They are actively part of the international community and are thus recognized through this body and experience no limitations or restrictions in their international functioning - albeit in their bilateral interaction with some - but not in the UN. Labrang (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The scope is not the issue, the inclusion criteria are. Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently the scope is not clear. Labrang (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The current scope is clear, this RfC attempted to change that scope. CMD (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the title is not clear. In my understanding of English, limited is not the same as everything minus 0.5% Labrang (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 * No redefining the word "limit" (as in restrict) is not an option and neither is entertaining the WP:OR idea of an arbitrary cut-off point. M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No The criteria are clear.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No per others above, although I'd be open to a discussion about renaming to "Countries that lack universal recognition", "List of countries not recognised universally", or similar, if the term limited is seen as too ambiguous. — kashmīrī  TALK  13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No - we write in English and the English word "limited" clearly applies to states that lack recognition from all other states. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The word "limited" means small, for countries which are recognized by more than 90% of all states, these are not "limited recognitions". 2001:8003:9100:2C01:ECC7:8630:F902:DCDB (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT Yes, please. The Cook Islands and Niue should be removed too. All 197 countries* recognized by the United Nations as "States" should not be included in this article.
 * Furthermore, I reckon that we should change the article title to List of de facto states instead.
 * * Link: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/WPP2013/Chapters/a_Preface.pdf
 * 2001:8003:9100:2C01:ECC7:8630:F902:DCDB (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 * No best fallow sources...guess work does not help our readers Moxy 🍁 19:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Spelling update
The country changed the spelling of it's name to be turkiye instead of turkey to differentiate itself from the bird. This is not in the article. 126.149.239.83 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 * SUPPORT Stop using Turkey please. We should have renamed the country a long time ago. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:ECC7:8630:F902:DCDB (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 * OPPOSE The article is written in English, not Turkish, and the country is known as "Turkey" in the English-speaking world. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

North Korea isn't recognised by Israel
Israel doesn't recognise the DPRK and only recognise the Republic of Korea as Korea, capital Seoul. Source: Israel governmental data base, list of countries and the relationship status. https://data.gov.il/dataset/mdn-status/resource/b1fdc757-07e3-4875-a023-99e59ac44f24

Besides, Israeli citizens are required to obtain permission from the Israeli foreign ministry if they want to visit North Korea. Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel). https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/examption_visa-israeli-heb/en/English_CONSULAR_DOCUMENTS_ISR_Visa_Abroad_Eng_1_24.pdf Amit1998IL (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Pakistan to the list
Armenia and Pakistan don't have mutual diplomatic recognition, but only Armenia is listed in the article. Add Pakistan to the list. 212.73.95.146 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan doesn't recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state
Representative offices (unlike an embassy) means unofficial relations, not recognition as a sovereign state. There no official recognition of its independence. Sources provided also confirm this. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Indeed, as discussed previously at /Archive 14, /Archive 14, /Archive 15, and /Archive 15. I have reverted the article change claiming otherwise. CMD (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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


text:
Viper

The Viperidae (vipers) are a family of snakes found in most parts of the world, except for Antarctica, Australia, Hawaii, Madagascar, New Zealand, Ireland, and various other isolated islands. They are venomous and have long (relative to non-vipers), hinged fangs that permit deep penetration and injection of their venom. Three subfamilies are currently recognized. They are also known as viperids. The name "viper" is derived from the Latin word vipera, -ae, also meaning viper, possibly from vivus ("living") and parere ("to beget"), referring to the trait viviparity (giving live birth) common in vipers like most of the species of Boidae.

Description

All viperids have a pair of relatively long solenoglyphous (hollow) fangs that are used to inject venom from glands located towards the rear of the upper jaws, just behind the eyes. Each of the two fangs is at the front of the mouth on a short maxillary bone that can rotate back and forth. When not in use, the fangs fold back against the roof of the mouth and are enclosed in a membranous sheath. This rotating mechanism allows for very long fangs to be contained in a relatively small mouth. The left and right fangs can be rotated together or independently. During a strike, the mouth can open nearly 180° and the maxilla rotates forward, erecting the fangs as late as possible so that the fangs do not become damaged, as they are brittle. The jaws close upon impact and the muscular sheaths encapsulating the venom glands contract, injecting the venom as the fangs penetrate the target. This action is very fast; in defensive strikes, it will be more a stab than a bite. Viperids use this mechanism primarily for immobilization and digestion of prey. Pre-digestion occurs as the venom contains proteases, which degrade tissues. Secondarily, it is used for self defense, though in cases with nonprey, such as humans, they may give a dry bite (not inject any venom). A dry bite allows the snake to conserve its precious reserve of venom, because once it has been depleted, time is needed to replenish it, leaving the snake vulnerable. In addition to being able to deliver dry bites, vipers can inject larger quantities of venom into larger prey targets, and smaller amounts into small prey. This causes the ideal amount of predigestion for the lowest amount of venom.

Almost all vipers have keeled scales, a stocky build with a short tail, and a triangle-shaped head distinct from the neck, owing to the location of the venom glands. The great majority have vertically elliptical, or slit-shaped, pupils that can open wide to cover most of the eye or close almost completely, which helps them to see in a wide range of light levels. Typically, vipers are nocturnal and ambush their prey. Compared to many other snakes, vipers often appear rather sluggish. Most are ovoviviparous: the eggs are retained inside the mother's body, and the young emerge living. However, a few lay eggs in nests. Typically, the number of young in a clutch remains constant, but as the weight of the mother increases, larger eggs are produced, yielding larger young.

Geographic range
Viperid snakes are found in the Americas, Africa, Eurasia, and South Asia. In the Americas, they are native from south of 48°N. In the Old World, viperids are located everywhere except Siberia, Ireland, and north of the Arctic Circle in Norway and Sweden. Wild viperids are not found in Australia. The common adder, a viperid, is the only venomous snake found in Great Britain.

Venom
Viperid venoms typically contain an abundance of protein-degrading enzymes, called proteases, that produce symptoms such as pain, strong local swelling and necrosis, blood loss from cardiovascular damage complicated by coagulopathy, and disruption of the blood-clotting system. Also being vasculotoxic in nature, viperine venom causes vascular endothelial damage and hemolysis. Death is usually caused by collapse in blood pressure. This is in contrast to elapid venoms, which generally contain neurotoxins that disable muscle contraction and cause paralysis. Death from elapid bites usually results from asphyxiation because the diaphragm can no longer contract, but this rule does not always apply; some elapid bites include proteolytic symptoms typical of viperid bites, while some viperid bites produce neurotoxic symptoms.

Proteolytic venom is also dual-purpose: first, it is used for defense and to immobilize prey, as with neurotoxic venoms; second, many of the venom's enzymes have a digestive function, breaking down molecules such as lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins. This is an important adaptation, as many vipers have inefficient digestive systems.

Due to the nature of proteolytic venom, a viperid bite is often a very painful experience and should always be taken seriously, though it may not necessarily prove fatal. Even with prompt and proper treatment, a bite can still result in a permanent scar, and in the worst cases, the affected limb may even have to be amputated. A victim's fate is impossible to predict, as this depends on many factors, including the species and size of the snake involved, how much venom was injected (if any), and the size and condition of the patient before being bitten. Viper bite victims may also be allergic to the venom or the antivenom.

Behavior
These snakes can decide how much venom to inject depending on the circumstances. The most important determinant of venom expenditure is generally the size of the snake; larger specimens can deliver much more venom. The species is also important, since some are likely to inject more venom than others, may have more venom available, strike more accurately, or deliver a number of bites in a short time. In predatory bites, factors that influence the amount of venom injected include the size of the prey, the species of prey, and whether the prey item is held or released. The need to label prey for chemosensory relocation after a bite and release may also play a role. In defensive bites, the amount of venom injected may be determined by the size or species of the predator (or antagonist), as well as the assessed level of threat, although larger assailants and higher threat levels may not necessarily lead to larger amounts of venom being injected.

Prey tracking
Hemotoxic venom takes more time than neurotoxic venom to immobilize prey, so viperid snakes need to track down prey animals after they have been bitten, in a process known as "prey relocalization". Vipers are able to do this via certain proteins contained in their venom. This important adaptation allowed rattlesnakes to evolve the strike-and-release bite mechanism, which provided a huge benefit to snakes by minimizing contact with potentially dangerous prey animals. This adaptation, then, requires the snake to track down the bitten animal to eat it, in an environment full of other animals of the same species. Western diamondback rattlesnakes respond more actively to mouse carcasses that have been injected with crude rattlesnake venom. When the various components of the venom were separated out, the snakes responded to mice injected with two kinds of disintegrins, which are responsible for allowing the snakes to track down their prey.

Subfamilies
Type genus = Vipera Laurenti, 1768

Heat-sensing pits
Pit vipers have specialized sensory organs near the nostrils called heat-sensing pits. The location of this organ is unique to pit vipers. These pits have the ability to detect thermal radiation emitted by warm-blooded animals, helping them better understand their environment. Internally the organ forms a small pit lined with membranes, external and internal, attached to the trigeminal nerve. Infrared light signals the internal membranes, which in turn signal the trigeminal nerve and send the infrared signals to the brain, where they are overlaid onto the visual image created by the eyes.

Taxonomy
Whether family Viperidae is attributed to Oppel (1811), as opposed to Laurenti (1768) or Gray (1825), is subject to some interpretation. The consensus among leading experts, though, is that Laurenti used viperae as the plural of vipera (Latin for "viper", "adder", or "snake") and did not intend for it to indicate a family group taxon. Rather, it is attributed to Oppel, based on his Viperini as a distinct family group name, despite the fact that Gray was the first to use the form Viperinae.

title: Viper


text:
Gazeta Wyborcza

Gazeta Wyborcza (The Electoral Gazette in English) is a Polish nationwide daily newspaper based in Warsaw, Poland. It was launched on 8 May 1989 on the basis of the Polish Round Table Agreement and as a press organ of the trade union "Solidarity" in the election campaign before the Contract Sejm. Initially created to cover Poland's first partially free parliamentary elections, it rapidly grew into a major publication, reaching a circulation of over 500,000 copies at its peak in the 1990s.

It is published by Agora, with its original editor-in-chief Adam Michnik, appointed by Lech Wałęsa, Gazeta Wyborcza is one of Poland's newspapers of record, covering the gamut of political, international and general news from a liberal perspective. Gazeta Wyborcza also publishes thematic supplements addressing topics such as economy, law, education, and health, including Duży Format, Co Jest Grane 24, and Wysokie Obcasy.

Since its founding, Gazeta Wyborcza 's investigative journalism has played a key role in shaping the Polish public opinion, such as its coverage of the Rywin affair, the Skin Hunters scandal in 2002, and the PKN Orlen scandal in 2004. In recent years, Gazeta Wyborcza has emerged as a leading liberal voice on issues like the separation of church and state and civil liberties, including women's rights and LGBT rights, which has sometimes resulted in conflicts with Poland's conservative PiS-led government (which was in power between 2015 and 2023). , Gazeta Wyborcza had over 290,000 digital subscribers, and 80,000 print sales. In 2020, Gazeta Wyborcza was the 10th most read newspaper in Europe.

Founding
Gazeta Wyborcza was established in accordance with the arrangements of the Round Table, as a press organ of the Solidarity Civic Committee in the election campaign before the parliamentary elections in 1989. Initially, the daily was to be called Gazeta Codzienna, and the adjective "election" was to function only during the election campaign. The first eight-page issue was published on 8 May 1989, in a circulation of 150,000 copies.

Gazeta Wyborcza was first published on 8 May 1989, under the rhyming masthead motto, "Nie ma wolności bez Solidarności" ("There's no freedom without Solidarity"). The founders were Andrzej Wajda, Aleksander Paszyński and Zbigniew Bujak. Its founding was an outcome of the Polish Round Table Agreement between the communist government of the People's Republic of Poland and political opponents centred on the Solidarity movement. It was initially owned by Agora SA. Later the American company Cox Communications partially bought the daily.

The paper was to serve as the voice of the Solidarity movement during the run-up to the 1989 parliamentary elections (hence its title). As such, it was the first legal newspaper published outside the government's control since its founding of regime in the late 1940s.

It was prepared by 20 journalists, most previously associated with the underground weekly Tygodnik Mazowsze. Michnik convinced Wałęsa to name him the editor-in-chief. Helena Łuczywo and Ernest Skalski became Michnik's deputies. The first editorial office was located in a former kindergarten in Mokotów.

According to the editors, the first edition was small (150,000 copies) and relatively expensive due to the limited supplies of paper made available by the government. A year and a half later, the daily run had reached 500,000 copies. In September 1990, during the breakup of the Solidarity camp following the collapse of the communist government, Wałęsa revoked the paper's right to use the Solidarity logo on its masthead. Since then, the Gazeta Wyborcza has been an independent newspaper broadly aligned with the centre-left and liberal position. After the Round Table talks during the presidential crisis, on 3 July 1989, an article by Michnik, with the headline: "Your president, our prime minister," where he opted for the election of the president on the recommendation of the Polish United Workers' Party and at the same time entrusting the mission of forming a government to a representative of the "Solidarity," postulating "an alliance of the democratic opposition with the reformist wing of the ruling camp." This proposal is currently interpreted as a proof of sensing the aspirations of the Solidarity camp to take over more power than was agreed at the Round Table, but officially met with opposition. Nevertheless, it was actually implemented: while Wojciech Jaruzelski, the current First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party, took over the position of president, the opposition, thanks to the votes of former allies of the communist party, formed the first non-communist government in Eastern Europe with Tadeusz Mazowiecki as prime minister.

From the second half of 1989, the environment concentrated in the editorial office of Wyborcza sympathized with the government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki, and at the same time was in conflict with the representatives of Tygodnik Solidarność. These antagonisms correlated with the political conflict known as the "War on the Mountain", during which Wałęsa allied himself with the Civic Committee faction represented by the brothers Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński against Mazowiecki. Adam Michnik supported the Prime Minister's environment, as a result of which, in September 1990, the National Commission of "Solidarity" adopted a resolution aimed at taking away Wyborcza the right to place the "Solidarity" stamp on the vignette. It was argued that "the bias of articles aimed at discrediting and ridiculing the chairman of Lech Wałęsa" and explaining that "Gazeta is not an information organ of "S", but a private company."

At that time, Tygodnik Solidarność, whose editor-in-chief at the time was Jarosław Kaczyński, published columns by columnists such as Romuald Szeremietiew, who accused the newspaper of manipulating information, including concealing events. As a result, the daily lost the right to use the union's logo and the slogan "There is no freedom without Solidarity". In addition, Wałęsa demanded the dismissal of Michnik (since July 1990 belonging to the Movement of Citizens, Democratic Action party ) from the post of editor-in-chief. Michnik resigned, but his resignation was not accepted by the members of the editorial office, and therefore he remained in office. A group of former oppositionists associated with Lech Wałęsa left the editorial office, which was the result of a dispute within the editorial office with a group of post-Solidarity circles representing different views.

Controversies
In the following years, Wyborcza's publications contributed to the disclosure of socio-political events in Poland. The daily began a journalistic investigation into the 1997 "gelatin scandal," a monopoly scam which included an entrepreneur Kazimierz Grabek.

Rywin affair
On 27 December 2002, Wyborcza published an article "An act for a bribe. Rywin comes to Michnik," related to an attempt to bribe the editor-in-chief of the newspaper by the film producer Lew Rywin. The aim of Rywin's actions, who presented himself as a representative of the "group holding power", was to persuade Michnik to support the law prepared by the ruling Alliance of the Democratic Left, preventing the expansion of media companies to electronic media. Smoleński's article initiated the Rywin affair, which resulted in the appointment of a parliamentary investigative commission. Together with other corruption scandals plaguing the country, the Rywin affair plunged the government of Leszek Miller, but Michnik himself—also screened by the commission in terms of business connections with Agora—met with a wave of criticism from other media.

In 2003, a Polish film producer Lew Rywin was accused by Gazeta Wyborcza of attempted bribery after he had allegedly solicited a bribe of $17.5 million from the editor Adam Michnik in exchange for amendments to a draft media legislation. The adoption of the draft law in the government's original form would have prevented Agora S.A. from purchasing Polsat, one of Poland's private TV stations. The case, dubbed the Rywin affair, led to an official inquiry by the Polish Parliament. Consequently, Lew Rywin was sentenced for attempting to influence the parliamentary legislative process aimed at enabling a Polish media company to buy a television station. The controversial draft legislation ended up being rejected by the Polish parliament.

Other major reports
A newspaper article from 23 January 2002 revealed an affair regarding the killing of patients by the employees of the Lodz ambulance service and the sale of information about deaths to funeral parlors.

An April 2004 report revealed irregularities related to the detention by the State Protection Office of the president of PKN Orlen, Andrzej Modrzejewski, and depriving him of his position in February 2002, initiating the Orlen scandal. The parliamentary investigative committee showed unclear interests in the then attempted privatization of Orlen, and Zbigniew Siemiątkowski, the head of the UOP responsible for arresting Modrzejewski, was convicted by a final judgment for abuse of power.

As a result of the article from 4 December 2006 entitled "Work for sex in Self-Defense," another political and moral scandal called the sex scandal broke out. Kącki revealed that Andrzej Lepper, president of the Samoobrona RP party and incumbent deputy prime minister, allegedly employed young women in party offices in exchange for sex.

Criticism
Gazeta Wyborcza used its influence to whitewash former communists, particularly General Jaruzelski. After the fall of real socialism, the paper was criticized for taking part in an "intensive propaganda campaign" and particularly for rigorously trying to revamp Jaruzelski's image.

Circulation
The paper is a multi-section daily newspaper and it publishes daily local editions for the following cities: Warsaw, Białystok, Bydgoszcz, Częstochowa, Gdańsk, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Katowice, Kraków, Kielce, Lublin, Łódź, Olsztyn, Opole, Płock, Poznań, Radom, Rzeszów, Szczecin, Toruń, Wrocław, and Zielona Góra.

The Gazeta Wyborcza had a circulation of 432,000 copies during the first three quarters of 1998. The circulation of the paper reached 459,473 copies between January and February 2001. Its circulation was 542,000 copies in 2003, making it the second best selling newspaper in the country. The 2004 circulation of the paper was 516,000 copies on weekdays and 686,000 copies on weekends. The average circulation of the newspaper peaked at 672,000, making the Gazeta Wyborcza the largest-selling newspaper in Poland. However, by 2010 the circulation had declined by more than half, to 319,000, and Fakt overtook the Gazeta Wyborcza as Poland's leading newspaper. The decline continued in 2013 when circulation was down to 190,000. At this time, Wyborcza began to invest more in its electronic version, and launched a subscription service. Paper circulation dropped to 86,000 in 2019, and stabilised at 81,000 in early 2020. As of January 2021, average daily circulation is 62,000. In August 2021, average daily circulation dropped to 53,190.

Changing the operating mode
In September 2020, the office space occupied by the editorial office at ul. Czerska in Warsaw has decreased by 40%, because the journalists of the newspaper and its website work outside the office: the employees of the paper edition can work homework, and most of the journalists and editors of the website work remotely.

Sections
Gazeta Wyborcza is divided into several sections. On the other side of the diary there is a collection of columns written by people associated with the magazine's editorial office, entitled "On the other side". The following sections are arranged according to the topics covered:

 * The Country and World sections apply to news coming from Poland and abroad, respectively.
 * The Welcome to Poland section contains reports on social issues.
 * The Opinions section is a collection of journalistic articles written by editorial staff and external experts.
 * The Culture section is devoted to cultural events, interviews with artists and observations on a selected cultural field.
 * The Science section consists of articles summarizing the latest scientific research in a journalistic form.
 * The Sports section describes the latest sports events.

Almost every issue of "Gazeta Wyborcza" contains additional content appearing as part of thematic weeklies. They are: "Large Format", "Ale Historia", "My Business. People, work, innovations", "Wyborcza TV", "Co Jest Grane 24", "Magazyn Świąteczny" and "Wysokie Obcasy".

"Duży Format" is a magazine of reporters of "Gazeta Wyborcza". It is published on Mondays. Reports, social, cultural and historical texts are published.

On Tuesdays, “Mój Biznes. People, work, innovations" devoted to companies, entrepreneurship and innovations in the economy, as well as presenting nationwide and regional announcements from industries.

The Friday supplements of "Gazeta Wyborcza" are: "Wyborcza TV" - a weekly with programs of Polish and foreign stations, which additionally presents interviews with TV creators and regular columns, as well as "Co Jest Grane 24" - a magazine announcing the cultural events of the weekend and the coming week, whose editors write about film and theater premieres, concerts, exhibitions and present recommended restaurants and clubs.

Every Saturday, "Gazeta Wyborcza" publishes: "Wolna Sobota" - an opinion magazine in which readers will find 40 pages of reading, presenting various worldviews and worlds as well as controversial hypotheses; "Ale Historia" - a historical weekly where its editors reach previously unknown facts, present unique places and people, works of art and cultural events; "Wysokie Obcasy" - a women's magazine that deals with everyday and extraordinary matters, and also publishes portraits of women not necessarily known from the front pages of newspapers.

Print style
Gazeta Wyborcza is published in a five-column block format, which was adopted at the beginning of the daily's existence. The magazine is printed in color on white paper, and its cover exposes the most important subject of the day in the form of a large headline. The current style of the daily is based on the change made on 7 March 2006, when its graphic design was updated, taken over from Agora's closed daily Nowy Dzien. The primary typeface used in the articles is of the Tribune type, designed by the Boston-based company Font Bureau.

Online presence
For the first time, content from supplements to Gazeta Wyborcza was made available by Agora on the Internet in 1994. The first archived pages of the magazine's information website come from December 1996 (located in the gazeta.pl domain ), and from May 2001 (located in the Wyborcza.pl domain). As early as 2001, the website functioning in the gazeta.pl domain, initially being the Internet version of Wyborcza, was transformed into a separate informational Internet portal. In 2006, a separate website, gazetawyborcza.pl, was separated from the Gazeta.pl portal, being an electronic version of Gazeta Wyborcza. Currently, the website operates in the Wyborcza.pl domain, functioning as the name of the website. The first editor-in-chief of the website was Edward Krzemień. The Wyborcza.pl website publishes articles that were simultaneously published in the printed version of the daily and its supplements. In addition, the website publishes additional content not present in the printed Gazeta Wyborcza : video materials, thematically grouped photos, drawings. In 2012, an online archive of Gazeta Wyborcza was launched.

In addition to the Wyborcza.pl portal, the content of the magazine is also published on a separate website Wyborcza.biz, devoted to economics and the economy. The Wyborcza.pl website is linked to the BIQdata portal, where socio-political reports are published in the form of charts, infographics and other graphic representations of numerical values. Its opening took place on 23 September 2014.

Wysokie Obcasy.pl features content concerning women and includes section on psychology, health and beauty, food, and jobs. Biqdata.wyborcza.pl is dedicated to stories and developments as seen through the prism of big data and the wider world of information technology.

In 2014, Gazeta Wyborcza introduced a digital subscription. The basic package includes access to the news on the website and through the app. The premium package offers access to all of its content including 28 local editions. The club package offers access to its editorial team, special events, and two additional subscriptions for family members. The entire content of Gazeta Wyborcza on the Internet has been payable since February 4, 2014. The number of digital subscriptions in subsequent years was: 55,000 (2014), 77,000 (2015), 100,000 (2016), 200,000 (2019), 220,000 (2020), and 260,000 (2021).

Mobile app
Content from Gazeta Wyborcza is available both in the version for personal computers and via the mobile application. On 10 June 2009, iPhone owners were able to download the journal app from the App Store. On 20 July 2012, the iPad application was launched. In February 2012, viewing journal articles was made possible on the Kindle. The first version of the application for devices with the Android operating system, produced by the We Like Caps development studio, appeared on Google Play on 7 July 2014.

Awards
Gazeta Wyborcza received many Grand Press awards; in 2014 it was honored with the title of the Newspaper of the Twenty-Five Years. The title of Journalist of the Year awarded during this ceremony was given in 2007 to Marcin Kącki, in 2010 – Artur Domosławski, in 2011 - Andrzej Poczobut, in 2013 - Mariusz Szczygieł, and in 2014 - Piotr Andrusieczko. In other categories, awards were given to Katarzyna Klukowska, Włodzimierz Kalicki, Jacek Hugo-Bader, Adam Wajrak, Ireneusz Dańko, Dariusz Janowski, Marcin Fabiański, Leszek Talko, Anna Bikont, Artur Włodarski, Tomasz Patora, Marcin Stelmasiak, Anna Fostalkowska, Roman Daszczyński, Krzysztof Wójcik, Angelika Kuźniak, Włodzimierz Nowak, Wojciech Staszewski, Magdalena Grochowska, Maciej Samcik, Joanna Wojciechowska, Paweł Wiejas, Piotr Głuchowski, Marcin Kowalski, Magdalena Grzebałkowska, Urszula Jabłońska, Agnieszka Kublik , Bartosz T. Wieliński, Donata Subbotko, Elżbieta Sidi, Anna Śmigulec, and Grzegorz Sroczyński. Journalists of the magazine were also awarded during four Sharp Pen awards ceremonies.

In 2004, the editorial office was awarded the "Drummer of the Greater Poland Uprising" statuette, awarded by the Main Board of the Society for the Remembrance of the Greater Poland Uprising 1918/1919.

In 2022, Gazeta Wyborcza and the Gazeta Wyborcza Foundation received the Golden Pen of Freedom award for fighting for independent journalism and carrying out its mission despite pressure from the authorities.

title: Gazeta Wyborcza


text:
Kedem Winery

''

Kedem Winery is a kosher food and beverage manufacturing and distribution company, incorporated in the United States since 1958, established as Royal Wine Corporation in June 1948 and run by the Herzog family since 1958.

Kedem currently sells over a million cases of kosher wine and grape juice annually, in sixteen countries worldwide. Formerly headquartered in New York City, it is now based in Bayonne, New Jersey. Vineyards for wine and grape juice are based in Marlboro, New York. It is especially known for its grape juice and NY state wines, as well as Kedem Tea Biscuits.

Kedem Foods is a sister brand that also produces other food products, and has merged with Kenover Marketing and B&W Foods to form the largest kosher food conglomerate, Kayco Kosher, which in turn owns other kosher food brands, such as Manischewitz, Hadar, and Gefen.

History
The Herzog family first operated a winery in Czechoslovakia. The winery was the exclusive wine supplier to Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria, who granted Philip Herzog (1843-1918) the title of baron. Though the wines for the emperor were not necessarily kosher wines, all of the other wines were produced under the full scrutiny of kosher law.

During World War II, the Herzog winery was seized by the Nazis. The Herzogs, who stayed in hiding, immigrated to the United States after the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état. Living in New York City, Eugene Herzog—Philip's grandson—began working for the Royal Wine Corporation and part of his salary was paid in company shares. By 1958, he was a majority stockholder and purchased the company and started doing business under the name Kedem. The current CEO of Royal Wine Corporation is Mordechai Herzog.

Kedem wines are part of the Royal Wine Corporation, the largest importer of Israeli wines and spirits in the US., which is in turn owned by KayCo, the largest Kosher food distributor.

title: Kedem Winery


text:
Cooperative game theory

In game theory, a cooperative game (or coalitional game) is a game with groups of players who form binding “coalitions” with external enforcement of cooperative behavior (e.g. through contract law). This is different from non-cooperative games in which there is either no possibility to forge alliances or all agreements need to be self-enforcing (e.g. through credible threats).

Cooperative games are analysed by focusing on coalitions that can be formed, and the joint actions that groups can take and the resulting collective payoffs.

Mathematical definition
A cooperative game is given by specifying a value for every coalition. Formally, the coalitional game consists of a finite set of players $$ N $$, called the grand coalition, and a characteristic function $$ v : 2^N \to \mathbb{R} $$ from the set of all possible coalitions of players to a set of payments that satisfies $$ v( \emptyset ) = 0 $$. The function describes how much collective payoff a set of players can gain by forming a coalition.

Cooperative game theory definition
Cooperative game theory is a branch of game theory that deals with the study of games where players can form coalitions, cooperate with one another, and make binding agreements. The theory offers mathematical methods for analysing scenarios in which two or more players are required to make choices that will affect other players wellbeing.

Common interests: In cooperative games, players share a common interest in achieving a specific goal or outcome. The players must identify and agree on a common interest to establish the foundation and reasoning for cooperation. Once the players have a clear understanding of their shared interest, they can work together to achieve it.

Necessary information exchange: Cooperation requires communication and information exchange among the players. Players must share information about their preferences, resources, and constraints to identify opportunities for mutual gain. By sharing information, players can better understand each other's goals and work towards achieving them together.

Voluntariness, equality, and mutual benefit: In cooperative games, players voluntarily come together to form coalitions and make agreements. The players must be equal partners in the coalition, and any agreements must be mutually beneficial. Cooperation is only sustainable if all parties feel they are receiving a fair share of the benefits.

Compulsory contract: In cooperative games, agreements between players are binding and mandatory. Once the players have agreed to a particular course of action, they have an obligation to follow through. The players must trust each other to keep their commitments, and there must be mechanisms in place to enforce the agreements. By making agreements binding and mandatory, players can ensure that they will achieve their shared goal.

Subgames
Let $$ S \subsetneq N $$ be a non-empty coalition of players. The subgame $$ v_S : 2^S \to \mathbb{R} $$ on $$ S $$ is naturally defined as

 * $$ v_S(T) = v(T), \forall~ T \subseteq S.$$

In other words, we simply restrict our attention to coalitions contained in $$ S $$. Subgames are useful because they allow us to apply solution concepts defined for the grand coalition on smaller coalitions.

Superadditivity
Characteristic functions are often assumed to be superadditive. This means that the value of a union of disjoint coalitions is no less than the sum of the coalitions' separate values:

$$ v ( S \cup T ) \geq v (S) + v (T) $$ whenever $$ S, T \subseteq N $$ satisfy $$ S \cap T = \emptyset $$.

Monotonicity
Larger coalitions gain more:

$$ S \subseteq T \Rightarrow v (S) \le v (T) $$.

This follows from superadditivity. i.e. if payoffs are normalized so singleton coalitions have zero value.

Properties for simple games
A coalitional game $v$ is considered simple if payoffs are either 1 or 0, i.e. coalitions are either "winning" or "losing".

Equivalently, a simple game can be defined as a collection $W$ of coalitions, where the members of $W$ are called winning coalitions, and the others losing coalitions. It is sometimes assumed that a simple game is nonempty or that it does not contain an empty set. However, in other areas of mathematics, simple games are also called hypergraphs or Boolean functions (logic functions).

 * A simple game $W$ is monotonic if any coalition containing a winning coalition is also winning, that is, if $$S \in W$$ and $$S\subseteq T$$ imply $$T \in W$$.
 * A simple game $W$ is proper if the complement (opposition) of any winning coalition is losing, that is, if $$S \in W$$ implies $$N\setminus S \notin W$$.
 * A simple game $W$ is strong if the complement of any losing coalition is winning, that is, if $$S \notin W$$ implies $$N\setminus S \in W$$.
 * If a simple game $W$ is proper and strong, then a coalition is winning if and only if its complement is losing, that is, $$S \in W$$ iff  $$N\setminus S \notin W$$. (If $v$ is a coalitional simple game that is proper and strong, $$v(S) = 1 - v(N \setminus S)$$ for any $S$.)
 * A veto player (vetoer) in a simple game is a player that belongs to all winning coalitions. Supposing there is a veto player, any coalition not containing a veto player is losing. A simple game $W$ is weak (collegial) if it has a veto player, that is, if the intersection $$\bigcap W := \bigcap_{S\in W} S$$ of all winning coalitions is nonempty.
 * A dictator in a simple game is a veto player such that any coalition containing this player is winning. The dictator does not belong to any losing coalition. (Dictator games in experimental economics are unrelated to this.)
 * A carrier of a simple game $W$ is a set $$T \subseteq N$$ such that for any coalition $S$, we have $$S \in W$$ iff $$S\cap T \in W$$.  When a simple game has a carrier, any player not belonging to it is ignored.  A simple game is sometimes called finite if it has a finite carrier (even if $N$ is infinite).
 * The Nakamura number of a simple game is the minimal number of winning coalitions with empty intersection. According to Nakamura's theorem, the number measures the degree of rationality; it is an indicator of the extent to which an aggregation rule can yield well-defined choices.

A few relations among the above axioms have widely been recognized, such as the following (e.g., Peleg, 2002, Section 2.1 ):

 * If a simple game is weak, it is proper.
 * A simple game is dictatorial if and only if it is strong and weak.

More generally, a complete investigation of the relation among the four conventional axioms (monotonicity, properness, strongness, and non-weakness), finiteness, and algorithmic computability has been made (Kumabe and Mihara, 2011 ), whose results are summarized in the Table "Existence of Simple Games" below.

The restrictions that various axioms for simple games impose on their Nakamura number were also studied extensively. In particular, a computable simple game without a veto player has a Nakamura number greater than 3 only if it is a proper and non-strong game.

Relation with non-cooperative theory
Let G be a strategic (non-cooperative) game. Then, assuming that coalitions have the ability to enforce coordinated behaviour, there are several cooperative games associated with G. These games are often referred to as representations of G. The two standard representations are:

 * The α-effective game associates with each coalition the sum of gains its members can 'guarantee' by joining forces. By 'guaranteeing', it is meant that the value is the max-min, e.g. the maximal value of the minimum taken over the opposition's strategies.
 * The β-effective game associates with each coalition the sum of gains its members can 'strategically guarantee' by joining forces. By 'strategically guaranteeing', it is meant that the value is the min-max, e.g. the minimal value of the maximum taken over the opposition's strategies.

Solution concepts
The main assumption in cooperative game theory is that the grand coalition $$ N $$ will form. The challenge is then to allocate the payoff $$ v(N) $$ among the players in some way. (This assumption is not restrictive, because even if players split off and form smaller coalitions, we can apply solution concepts to the subgames defined by whatever coalitions actually form.) A solution concept is a vector $$ x \in \mathbb{R}^N $$ (or a set of vectors) that represents the allocation to each player. Researchers have proposed different solution concepts based on different notions of fairness. Some properties to look for in a solution concept include:

 * Efficiency: The payoff vector exactly splits the total value: $$ \sum_{ i \in N } x_i = v(N) $$.
 * Individual rationality: No player receives less than what he could get on his own: $$ x_i \geq v(\{i\}), \forall~ i \in N $$.
 * Existence: The solution concept exists for any game $$ v $$.
 * Uniqueness: The solution concept is unique for any game $$ v $$.
 * Marginality: The payoff of a player depends only on the marginal contribution of this player, i.e., if these marginal contributions are the same in two different games, then the payoff is the same: $$ v( S \cup \{ i \} ) = w( S \cup \{ i \} ), \forall~ S \subseteq N \setminus \{ i \} $$ implies that $$ x_i $$ is the same in $$v$$ and in $$w$$.
 * Monotonicity: The payoff of a player increases if the marginal contribution of this player increase: $$ v( S \cup \{ i \} ) \leq w( S \cup \{ i \} ), \forall~ S \subseteq N \setminus \{ i \} $$ implies that $$ x_i $$ is weakly greater in $$w$$ than in $$v$$.
 * Computational ease: The solution concept can be calculated efficiently (i.e. in polynomial time with respect to the number of players $$ |N| $$.)
 * Symmetry: The solution concept $$ x $$ allocates equal payments $$ x_i = x_j $$ to symmetric players $$ i $$, $$ j $$. Two players $$ i $$, $$ j $$ are symmetric if $$ v( S \cup \{ i \} ) = v( S \cup \{ j \} ), \forall~ S \subseteq N \setminus \{ i, j \} $$; that is, we can exchange one player for the other in any coalition that contains only one of the players and not change the payoff.
 * Additivity: The allocation to a player in a sum of two games is the sum of the allocations to the player in each individual game. Mathematically, if $$ v $$ and $$ \omega $$ are games, the game $$ ( v + \omega ) $$ simply assigns to any coalition the sum of the payoffs the coalition would get in the two individual games. An additive solution concept assigns to every player in $$ ( v + \omega ) $$ the sum of what he would receive in $$ v $$ and $$ \omega $$.
 * Zero Allocation to Null Players: The allocation to a null player is zero. A null player $$ i $$ satisfies $$ v( S \cup \{ i \} ) = v( S ), \forall~ S \subseteq N \setminus \{ i \} $$. In economic terms, a null player's marginal value to any coalition that does not contain him is zero.

An efficient payoff vector is called a pre-imputation, and an individually rational pre-imputation is called an imputation. Most solution concepts are imputations.

The stable set
The stable set of a game (also known as the von Neumann-Morgenstern solution ) was the first solution proposed for games with more than 2 players. Let $$ v $$ be a game and let $$ x $$, $$ y $$ be two imputations of $$ v $$. Then $$ x $$ dominates $$ y $$ if some coalition $$ S \neq \emptyset $$ satisfies $$ x_i > y _i, \forall~ i \in S $$ and $$ \sum_{ i \in S } x_i \leq v(S) $$. In other words, players in $$ S $$ prefer the payoffs from $$ x $$ to those from $$ y $$, and they can threaten to leave the grand coalition if $$ y $$ is used because the payoff they obtain on their own is at least as large as the allocation they receive under $$ x $$.

A stable set is a set of imputations that satisfies two properties:

 * Internal stability: No payoff vector in the stable set is dominated by another vector in the set.
 * External stability: All payoff vectors outside the set are dominated by at least one vector in the set.

Von Neumann and Morgenstern saw the stable set as the collection of acceptable behaviours in a society: None is clearly preferred to any other, but for each unacceptable behaviour there is a preferred alternative. The definition is very general allowing the concept to be used in a wide variety of game formats.

Properties

 * A stable set may or may not exist, and if it exists it is typically not unique . Stable sets are usually difficult to find. This and other difficulties have led to the development of many other solution concepts.
 * A positive fraction of cooperative games have unique stable sets consisting of the core.
 * A positive fraction of cooperative games have stable sets which discriminate $$n-2$$ players. In such sets at least $$n-3$$ of the discriminated players are excluded.

The core
Let $$ v $$ be a game. The core of $$ v $$ is the set of payoff vectors

 * $$ C( v ) = \left\{ x \in \mathbb{R}^N: \sum_{ i \in N } x_i = v(N); \quad \sum_{ i \in S } x_i \geq v(S), \forall~ S \subseteq N \right\}.$$

In words, the core is the set of imputations under which no coalition has a value greater than the sum of its members' payoffs. Therefore, no coalition has incentive to leave the grand coalition and receive a larger payoff.

Properties

 * The core of a game may be empty (see the Bondareva–Shapley theorem). Games with non-empty cores are called balanced.
 * If it is non-empty, the core does not necessarily contain a unique vector.
 * The core is contained in any stable set, and if the core is stable it is the unique stable set; see for a proof.

The core of a simple game with respect to preferences
For simple games, there is another notion of the core, when each player is assumed to have preferences on a set $$X$$ of alternatives. A profile is a list $$p=(\succ_i^p)_{i \in N}$$ of individual preferences $$\succ_i^p$$ on $$X$$. Here $$x \succ_i^p y$$ means that individual $$i$$ prefers alternative $$x$$ to $$y$$ at profile $$p$$. Given a simple game $$v$$ and a profile $$p$$, a dominance relation $$\succ^p_v$$ is defined on $$X$$ by $$x \succ^p_v y$$ if and only if there is a winning coalition $$S$$ (i.e., $$v(S)=1$$) satisfying $$x \succ_i^p y$$ for all $$i \in S$$. The core $$C(v,p)$$ of the simple game $$v$$ with respect to the profile $$p$$ of preferences is the set of alternatives undominated by $$\succ^p_v$$ (the set of maximal elements of $$X$$ with respect to $$\succ^p_v$$):

 * $$x \in C(v,p)$$ if and only if there is no $$y\in X$$ such that $$y \succ^p_v x$$.

The Nakamura number of a simple game is the minimal number of winning coalitions with empty intersection. Nakamura's theorem states that the core $$C(v,p)$$ is nonempty for all profiles $$p$$ of acyclic (alternatively, transitive) preferences if and only if $$X$$ is finite and the cardinal number (the number of elements) of $$X$$ is less than the Nakamura number of $$v$$. A variant by Kumabe and Mihara states that the core $$C(v,p)$$ is nonempty for all profiles $$p$$ of preferences that have a maximal element if and only if the cardinal number of $$X$$ is less than the Nakamura number of $$v$$. (See Nakamura number for details.)

The strong epsilon-core
Because the core may be empty, a generalization was introduced in. The strong $$ \varepsilon $$-core for some number $$ \varepsilon \in \mathbb{R} $$ is the set of payoff vectors

 * $$ C_\varepsilon( v ) = \left\{ x \in \mathbb{R}^N: \sum_{ i \in N } x_i = v(N); \quad \sum_{ i \in S } x_i \geq v(S) - \varepsilon, \forall~ S \subseteq N \right\}. $$

In economic terms, the strong $$ \varepsilon $$-core is the set of pre-imputations where no coalition can improve its payoff by leaving the grand coalition, if it must pay a penalty of $$ \varepsilon $$ for leaving. $$ \varepsilon $$ may be negative, in which case it represents a bonus for leaving the grand coalition. Clearly, regardless of whether the core is empty, the strong $$ \varepsilon $$-core will be non-empty for a large enough value of $$ \varepsilon $$ and empty for a small enough (possibly negative) value of $$ \varepsilon $$. Following this line of reasoning, the least-core, introduced in, is the intersection of all non-empty strong $$ \varepsilon $$-cores. It can also be viewed as the strong $$ \varepsilon $$-core for the smallest value of $$ \varepsilon $$ that makes the set non-empty.

The Shapley value
The Shapley value is the unique payoff vector that is efficient, symmetric, and satisfies monotonicity. It was introduced by Lloyd Shapley who showed that it is the unique payoff vector that is efficient, symmetric, additive, and assigns zero payoffs to dummy players. The Shapley value of a superadditive game is individually rational, but this is not true in general.

The kernel
Let $$ v : 2^N \to \mathbb{R} $$ be a game, and let $$ x \in \mathbb{R}^N $$ be an efficient payoff vector. The maximum surplus of player i over player j with respect to x is

 * $$ s_{ij}^v(x) = \max \left\{ v(S) - \sum_{ k \in S } x_k : S \subseteq N \setminus \{ j \}, i \in S \right\}, $$

the maximal amount player i can gain without the cooperation of player j by withdrawing from the grand coalition N under payoff vector x, assuming that the other players in i's withdrawing coalition are satisfied with their payoffs under x. The maximum surplus is a way to measure one player's bargaining power over another. The kernel of $$v$$ is the set of imputations x that satisfy

 * $$ ( s_{ij}^v(x) - s_{ji}^v(x) ) \times ( x_j - v(j) ) \leq 0 $$, and
 * $$ ( s_{ji}^v(x) - s_{ij}^v(x) ) \times ( x_i - v(i) ) \leq 0 $$

for every pair of players i and j. Intuitively, player i has more bargaining power than player j with respect to imputation x if $$s_{ij}^v(x) > s_{ji}^v(x)$$, but player j is immune to player i's threats if $$ x_j = v(j) $$, because he can obtain this payoff on his own. The kernel contains all imputations where no player has this bargaining power over another. This solution concept was first introduced in.

Harsanyi dividend
The Harsanyi dividend (named after John Harsanyi, who used it to generalize the Shapley value in 1963 ) identifies the surplus that is created by a coalition of players in a cooperative game. To specify this surplus, the worth of this coalition is corrected by the surplus that is already created by subcoalitions. To this end, the dividend $$d_v(S)$$ of coalition $$S$$ in game $$v$$ is recursively determined by

$$\begin{align} d_v(\{i\})&= v(\{i\}) \\ d_v(\{i,j\})&= v(\{i,j\})-d_v(\{i\})-d_v(\{j\}) \\ d_v(\{i,j,k\})&= v(\{i,j,k\})-d_v(\{i,j\})-d_v(\{i,k\})-d_v(\{j,k\})-d_v(\{i\})-d_v(\{j\})-d_v(\{k\})\\ &\vdots \\ d_v(S) &= v(S) - \sum_{T\subsetneq S }d_v(T) \end{align}$$

An explicit formula for the dividend is given by $d_v(S)=\sum_{T\subseteq S }(-1)^{|S\setminus T|}v(T)$. The function $$ d_v:2^N \to \mathbb{R}$$ is also known as the Möbius inverse of $$ v:2^N \to \mathbb{R}$$. Indeed, we can recover $$v$$ from $$d_v$$ by help of the formula $v(S) = d_v(S) + \sum_{T\subsetneq S }d_v(T)$.

Harsanyi dividends are useful for analyzing both games and solution concepts, e.g. the Shapley value is obtained by distributing the dividend of each coalition among its members, i.e., the Shapley value $$\phi_i(v)$$ of player $$i$$ in game $$v$$ is given by summing up a player's share of the dividends of all coalitions that she belongs to, $\phi_i(v)=\sum_{S\subset N: i \in S }{d_v(S)}/{|S|}$.

The nucleolus
Let $$ v : 2^N \to \mathbb{R} $$ be a game, and let $$ x \in \mathbb{R}^N $$ be a payoff vector. The excess of $$ x $$ for a coalition $$ S \subseteq N $$ is the quantity $$ v(S) - \sum_{ i \in S } x_i $$; that is, the gain that players in coalition $$ S $$ can obtain if they withdraw from the grand coalition $$ N $$ under payoff $$ x $$ and instead take the payoff $$ v(S) $$. The nucleolus of $$ v $$ is the imputation for which the vector of excesses of all coalitions (a vector in $$ \mathbb{R}^{2^N} $$) is smallest in the leximin order. The nucleolus was introduced in.

gave a more intuitive description: Starting with the least-core, record the coalitions for which the right-hand side of the inequality in the definition of $$ C_\varepsilon( v ) $$ cannot be further reduced without making the set empty. Continue decreasing the right-hand side for the remaining coalitions, until it cannot be reduced without making the set empty. Record the new set of coalitions for which the inequalities hold at equality; continue decreasing the right-hand side of remaining coalitions and repeat this process as many times as necessary until all coalitions have been recorded. The resulting payoff vector is the nucleolus.

Properties

 * Although the definition does not explicitly state it, the nucleolus is always unique. (See Section II.7 of for a proof.)
 * If the core is non-empty, the nucleolus is in the core.
 * The nucleolus is always in the kernel, and since the kernel is contained in the bargaining set, it is always in the bargaining set (see for details.)

Convex cooperative games
Introduced by Shapley in, convex cooperative games capture the intuitive property some games have of "snowballing". Specifically, a game is convex if its characteristic function $$ v $$ is supermodular:

 * $$ v( S \cup T ) + v( S \cap T ) \geq v(S) + v(T), \forall~ S, T \subseteq N.$$

It can be shown (see, e.g., Section V.1 of ) that the supermodularity of $$ v $$ is equivalent to

 * $$ v( S \cup \{ i \} ) - v(S) \leq v( T \cup \{ i \} ) - v(T), \forall~ S \subseteq T \subseteq N \setminus \{ i \}, \forall~ i \in N;$$

that is, "the incentives for joining a coalition increase as the coalition grows", leading to the aforementioned snowball effect. For cost games, the inequalities are reversed, so that we say the cost game is convex if the characteristic function is submodular.

Properties
Convex cooperative games have many nice properties:

 * Supermodularity trivially implies superadditivity.
 * Convex games are totally balanced: The core of a convex game is non-empty, and since any subgame of a convex game is convex, the core of any subgame is also non-empty.
 * A convex game has a unique stable set that coincides with its core.
 * The Shapley value of a convex game is the center of gravity of its core.
 * An extreme point (vertex) of the core can be found in polynomial time using the greedy algorithm: Let $$ \pi: N \to N $$ be a permutation of the players, and let $$ S_i = \{ j \in N: \pi(j) \leq i \} $$ be the set of players ordered $$ 1 $$ through $$ i $$ in $$ \pi $$, for any $$ i = 0, \ldots, n $$, with $$ S_0 = \emptyset $$. Then the payoff $$ x \in \mathbb{R}^N $$ defined by $$ x_i = v( S_{\pi(i)} ) - v( S_{\pi(i) - 1} ), \forall~ i \in N $$ is a vertex of the core of $$ v $$. Any vertex of the core can be constructed in this way by choosing an appropriate permutation $$ \pi $$.

Similarities and differences with combinatorial optimization
Submodular and supermodular set functions are also studied in combinatorial optimization. Many of the results in have analogues in, where submodular functions were first presented as generalizations of matroids. In this context, the core of a convex cost game is called the base polyhedron, because its elements generalize base properties of matroids.

However, the optimization community generally considers submodular functions to be the discrete analogues of convex functions, because the minimization of both types of functions is computationally tractable. Unfortunately, this conflicts directly with Shapley's original definition of supermodular functions as "convex".

The relationship between cooperative game theory and firm
Corporate strategic decisions can develop and create value through cooperative game theory. This means that cooperative game theory can become the strategic theory of the firm, and different CGT solutions can simulate different institutions.

title: Cooperative game theory


text:
Lanuvium

Lanuvium, modern Lanuvio, is an ancient city of Latium vetus, some 32 km southeast of Rome, a little southwest of the Via Appia.

Situated on an isolated hill projecting south from the main mass of the Alban Hills, Lanuvium commanded an extensive view over the low country between it and the sea.

History

According to legend, Lanuvium was founded by Diomedes, or by one Lanoios, an exile from Troy. The first documented traces of the settlement date from the 9th century BC and by the 6th century BC it was part of the Latin League.

The city warred against Rome at the battles of Aricia (504 BC) and Lake Regillus (496 BC), as well as in 383 and 341 BC, mostly with negative outcomes. Rome conquered Lanuvium in 338 BC; at first, its inhabitants did not enjoy the right of Roman citizenship, but acquired it later. In imperial times the city's chief magistrate and municipal council kept the titles of dictator and senatus respectively.

In the 11th c. the city became known as Civita Lavinia, a result of the confusion between it and ancient Lavinium.

Cult of Juno
Lanuvium was especially noted for its rich and much venerated temple of Juno Sospes (Livy 8.14; Cic. Nat. D. 1.83; Fin. 2.63), from which Octavian borrowed money in 31 BC, and the possessions of which extended as far as the coast of the Mediterranean. It possessed many other temples repaired by Antoninus Pius, who was born close by (S. H. A. Ant. Pius 1), as was Commodus.

Prominent citizens
One prominent native of Lanuvium was Lucius Licinius Murena (consul of 62 BC), whom Cicero defended in late 63 BC. Others include the actor Roscius (Cic. Div. 36), the political agitator Titus Annius Milo, who was convicted for the murder of Clodius (Cic. Mil. 27) and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, consul of 12 BC and later legate of Syria.

Monuments
Remains of the ancient theatre and of the city walls exist in the modern town, and above it is an area surrounded by a portico, in opus reticulatum, upon the north side of which is a rectangular building in opus quadratum, probably connected with the temple of Juno where archaic decorative terracottas artifacts have been found. The acropolis of the primitive city was probably on the highest point above the temple to the north. The neighborhood, which is now covered with vineyards, contains the remains of many Roman villas, one of which is traditionally attributed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius.

title: Lanuvium


text:
Ed Spiezio

Edward Wayne Spiezio (born October 31, 1941) is an American former professional baseball third baseman. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) from 1964 to 1972 for the St. Louis Cardinals, San Diego Padres and Chicago White Sox. Listed at 5 ft and 180 lb, he batted and threw right-handed.

Career
Spiezio spent five years with the Cardinals, being a member of the 1964 World Series and 1967 World Series championship teams, although he only played in the latter series. He also played in the 1968 World Series, which the Cardinals lost.

Notably, he also collected the first hit, first home run, and scored the first run in San Diego Padres history. This took place on April 8, 1969, in the bottom of the fifth inning against Houston Astros right-hander Don Wilson.

In a nine-season career, Spiezio hit .238 (367-for-1544) with 39 home runs and 174 runs batted in, including 126 runs, 56 doubles, four triples, and 16 stolen bases in 554 games played.

Spiezio also played for four different minor-league teams in parts of five seasons spanning 1963–1972, posting a .263 average with 47 homers and 191 RBI in 383 games.

He also played for the Leones del Caracas and Tiburones de La Guaira clubs of the Venezuelan Winter League.

Personal life
Ed Spiezio is the father of Scott Spiezio, who played in MLB from 1996 to 2007 and completed his major-league career with the Cardinals. They are regarded as the third father-son tandem in Cardinals' history.

title: Ed Spiezio


text:
Elke Sommer

Elke Sommer (née Schletz, 5 November 1940) is a German actress. She appeared in numerous films in her heyday throughout the 1960s and 1970s, including roles in The Pink Panther sequel A Shot in the Dark (1964), the Bob Hope comedy Boy, Did I Get a Wrong Number! (1966), Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (1974), and the British Carry On series in Carry On Behind (1975).

Early life
Sommer was born in Berlin to Baron Peter von Schletz, a Lutheran minister, and his wife Renata, née Topp. During the Second World War (in 1942), the family was evacuated to Niederndorf, a village near Erlangen, a small university town in Franconia. From 1950, she attended a gymnasium (university-preparatory secondary school). Her father died when she was 14. Elke was good with languages, but math and science posed challenges, so her mother let her drop out of gymnasium in 1957 one year after graduating from middle school. In the spring of 1957, she moved to London for one year to work as an au pair for the family of now actress Vicki Michelle and to attend an English language institute three times a week. This was her first time away from home and family, and she was quite homesick.

Discovery
Sommer was spotted by film director Vittorio De Sica while on holiday in Italy, and she began appearing in films there in 1958. Also that year, she changed her surname from Schletz to Sommer. She soon became a sex symbol and moved to Hollywood in the early 1960s. Sommer became one of the more popular pin-up girls of the time, posing for pictorials in the September 1964 and December 1967 issues of Playboy magazine.

The 1960s
Sommer became one of the top film actresses of the 1960s. She made 99 film and television appearances from 1959 to 2005, including The Prize (1963) with Paul Newman, A Shot in the Dark (1964) with Peter Sellers, The Art of Love (1965) with James Garner and Dick Van Dyke, The Oscar (1966) with Stephen Boyd, Boy, Did I Get a Wrong Number! (1966) with Bob Hope, the Bulldog Drummond extravaganza Deadlier Than the Male (1966), The Wrecking Crew (1968) with Dean Martin and Sharon Tate, and The Wicked Dreams of Paula Schultz (1968); in each of these films she was the leading lady.

In 1964, she won a Golden Globe award as Most Promising Newcomer Actress for The Prize, a film in which she co-starred with Paul Newman and Edward G. Robinson.

A frequent guest on television, Sommer sang and participated in comedy sketches on episodes of The Dean Martin Show and on Bob Hope specials, made 10 appearances on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, and was a panelist on the Hollywood Squares game show many times between 1971 and 1980, when Peter Marshall was its host.

The 1970s
Sommer's films during the 1970s included the thriller Zeppelin, in which she co-starred with Michael York, and a 1974 remake of Agatha Christie's murder mystery Ten Little Indians. In 1972, she starred in two Italian horror films directed by Mario Bava: Baron Blood and Lisa and the Devil. The latter was re-edited (with 1975 footage inserted) to make a different film titled House of Exorcism. Sommer went back to Italy to act in additional scenes for Lisa and the Devil, which its producer inserted into the film to convert it to House of Exorcism against the wishes of the director.

In 1975, Peter Rogers cast her in the British comedy Carry On Behind as the Russian Professor Vrooshka. She became the Carry On films' joint highest-paid performer, at £30,000; this was an honour that she shared with Phil Silvers (who starred in Follow That Camel).

Most of her movie work during the decade came in European films. After the 1979 comedy The Prisoner of Zenda, which reunited her with Sellers, the actress did virtually no more acting in Hollywood films, concentrating more on her artwork.

Sommer also performed as a singer, recording and releasing several albums.

Later work
In the 1980s, Sommer hosted a syndicated programme titled The Exciting World of Speed and Beauty.

After the 1990s, Sommer concentrated more on painting than on acting. As an actress, she had worked in half a dozen countries learning the languages (she speaks seven languages) and storing images which she has expressed on canvas. Her artwork shows a strong influence from Marc Chagall.

Sommer was embroiled in a long-running feud with Zsa Zsa Gabor that began in 1984 when both appeared on Circus of the Stars. This had escalated into a multimillion-dollar libel suit by 1993, resulting in Sommer being awarded $3.3 million in damages from Gabor and her husband, Frederick von Anhalt, for defaming her in interviews published in a pair of German publications in 1990.

In 2001, a Golden Palm Star on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars was dedicated to her.

Sommer provided the voice of Yzma in the German version of The Emperor's New Groove.

Personal life
In 1964, Sommer married Hollywood columnist Joe Hyams (1923–2008), who was 17 years her senior, in Las Vegas.

They later divorced, and she met Wolf Walther, eight years her junior and the managing director of a luxury hotel, Essex House in New York City. They were married on 29 August 1993 in Franconia. In a 2014 interview, Sommer described how she and Walther met:

"I was in New York City starring in Tamara and had to stay there for four months. So, I had to find an apartment but they were excruciatingly expensive, tiny and loud. As I knew the managing director of the Essex House, I wanted to talk to him about renting a room but the hotel had a new managing director, a man by the name of Wolf Walther. So we met. For him, it was love at first sight. For me, it took a little longer, but not much longer. As you may know, Tamara is a play in which the audience follows the actor of their choice, and as you may also know, my husband is 6'5' and hard to miss. I saw him every night in the audience, following me. Every night. And that was the beginning of the greatest love story of my life, still unfolding and getting better by the day."

As of May 2017, Sommer was living in Los Angeles, California.

Selected filmography

 * The Friend of the Jaguar (1959) – Grete
 * Men and Noblemen (1959) – Caterina
 * Ragazzi del Juke-Box (1959) – Giulia Cesari
 * The Death Ship (1959) – Mylene, ein Französisches Mädchen
 * The Day the Rains Came (1959) – Ellen
 * La Pica sul Pacifico (1959) – Rossana
 * Stage Fright (1960) – Evelyne
 * Howlers in the Dock (1960) – Giulia Giommarelli
 * Heaven, Love and Twine (1960) – Eva
 * The Warrior Empress (1960)
 * Femmine di lusso (1960) – Greta
 * Und sowas nennt sich Leben (1961) – Britta
 * Daniella by Night (1961) – Daniella
 * Don't Bother to Knock (1961) – Ingrid
 * Beloved Impostor (1961) – Barbara Shadwell
 * Auf Wiedersehen (1961) – Suzy Dalton
 * Café Oriental (1962) – Sylvia
 * Douce violence (1962) – Elke
 * Das Mädchen und der Staatsanwalt (1962) – Renate Hecker
 * Un chien dans un jeu de quilles (1962) – Ariane
 * Bahía de Palma (1962) – Olga
 * The Phone Rings Every Night (1962) – Tochter Mabel Meyer
 * Les Bricoleurs (1963) – Brigitte
 * Ostrva (1963) – Eva
 * The Victors (1963) – Helga Metzger
 * ...denn die Musik und die Liebe in Tirol (1963)
 * The Prize (1963) – Inger Lisa Andersson
 * A Shot in the Dark (1964) – Maria Gambrelli
 * Among Vultures (1964) – Annie Dillman
 * Le bambole (1965, UK title: Four Kinds of Love) – Ulla (segment "Il Trattato di Eugenetica")
 * The Art of Love (1965) – Nikki Dunnay
 * The Money Trap (1965) – Lisa Baron
 * Hotel der toten Gäste (1965) – Herself
 * The Oscar (1966) – Kay Bergdahl
 * Boy, Did I Get a Wrong Number! (1966) – Didi
 * The Venetian Affair (1966) – Sandra Fane
 * The Peking Medallion (1967, a.k.a. The Corrupt Ones) – Lilly Mancini
 * Deadlier Than the Male (1967) – Irma Eckman
 * The Wicked Dreams of Paula Schultz (1968) – Paula Schultz
 * They Came to Rob Las Vegas (1968) – Ann Bennett
 * The Wrecking Crew (1969) – Linka Karensky
 * The Invincible Six (1970) – Zari
 * Percy (1971) – Helga
 * Zeppelin (1971) – Erika Altschul
 * Probe (1972, TV movie) – Heideline 'Uli' Ullman
 * Baron Blood (1972) – Eva Arnold
 * Trip to Vienna (1973) – Toni Simon
 * The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (1973) Herself - Guest
 * Lisa and the Devil (1973) – Lisa Reiner / Elena
 * One or the Other of Us (1974) – Miezi
 * Percy's Progress (1974) – Clarissa
 * Ten Little Indians (1974, also known as And Then There Were None) – Vera Clyde
 * Carry On Behind (1975) – Professor Anna Vooshka
 * The Net (1975) – Christa Sonntag
 * The Swiss Conspiracy (1976) – Rita Jensen
 * Meet Him and Die (1976) – Perrone's Secretary
 * One Away (1976) – Elsa
 * The Astral Factor (1978) – Chris Hartman (re-released as The Invisible Strangler in 1984)
 * I Miss You, Hugs and Kisses (1978, also known as Drop Dead Dearest) – Magdalene Kruschen
 * The Prisoner of Zenda (1979) – The Countess
 * Stunt Seven (1979, TV movie) – Rebecca Wayne
 * The Double McGuffin (1979) – Madame Kura
 * The Treasure Seekers (1979) – Ursula
 * A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square (1979) – Miss Pelham
 * Top of the Hill (1980, TV movie) – Eva Heggener
 * Exit Sunset Boulevard (1980) – Frau Lachmann
 * The Man in Pyjamas (1981) – Frau Lachmann
 * Inside the Third Reich (1982, TV movie) – Magda Goebbels
 * Lily in Love (1984) – Alicia Braun
 * No One Cries Forever (1984) – Lou Parker
 * Jenny's War (1985, TV series) – Eva Gruenberg
 * The Exciting World Of Speed And Beauty (syndicated; 1980s) - Herself
 * Peter the Great (1986, TV mini-series) – Charlotte
 * St. Elsewhere (1986, TV series) – Natasha
 * Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna (1986, TV movie) – Isabel Von Hohenstauffen
 * Death Stone (1987) – Kris Patterson
 * Adventures Beyond Belief (1988, TV series) – Headmistress Bruno von Kleff
 * Himmelsheim (1988) – Helga Münzel
 * Severed Ties (1992) – Helena Harrison
 * Counterstrike (1992, TV series) – Anita Duvalier
 * Happy Holiday (1993, TV series) – Isabella Scattini
 * Destiny Ridge (1993, TV series) – Anna
 * Florian III (1994, TV series) – Sonja Carpenter
 * Life Is a Bluff (1996) – Jutta
 * Double Game with Anne – Gotta have it (1998)
 * Gisbert (1999, TV series)
 * Doppeltes Spiel mit Anne (1999) – Frau Lorenz
 * Flashback (2000 film) (2000) – Frau Lust
 * Nicht mit uns (2000, TV movie) – Andrea Paretti
 * The Emperor's New Groove (2000) - Yzma (German dub)
 * Reblaus (2005, TV movie) – Maria Rüppel
 * Ewig rauschen die Gelder (2005, TV movie) – Frau von Korff
 * Life Is Too Long (2010) – Alfi Seliger's mother
 * A Thousand Kisses (2017, animated short) – Nette (voice)

title: Elke Sommer