text:
User talk:Chalst/archive-1

Welcome message
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst27 23:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Some pages in need of serious attention
Sorry, I hope I didn't discourage you from editing; there are some logic pages that need serious attention! --- Axiom for example has some appalling innaccuracies about the Godel completeness theorem (this and the incompleteness theroem are the logic equivalent of Schrodinger's cat). Possible worlds isn't bad, but an explicit (maybe simplified) discussion of models of modal logic would be helpful. (Having such a discussion, would make it clearer the distinction between Possible worlds and many-worlds interpretation) CSTAR 14:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Not at all: you should see the criticism my last (accepted) conference paper on modal logic received... And in any case, the most rewarding thing is to know that someone will actually read what I write :-)  I'm a "root and branch" sort of reformer: I'll start making improvements at the Logic page, and branch out to the ramified logic pages from there.  So thanks for keeping track of hwat I have been doing so far!  Charles Stewart 15:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It would be useful to delete or reorganize some of the Logic pages. For instance, there is a page called college logic; another called good argument.   SHouldn't these be deleted or incorporated into other pages? I also put some effort into cleaning up logical argument and informal logic, but these still need attention from others.  And also I would like to see major improvement in the political argument page. I started it, because I felt something had to be said (particularly considering the lack of it on this side of the Atlantic).CSTAR 17:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GJ on logic, careful w/ red links
Hey, thanks for some excellent additions to logic, they'll really help the article out. I've made a couple changes already, but one thing I noticed was just superficial so I thought I'd alert you to it here. After your major edit you left several red links. In general, when you preview an article you should look at all the red links and see if you can fix them. Of course some articles won't exist yet, but major topics almost always exist, and you may have to search for it to see the exact page name to use for the link. Familiarity with general naming conventions will help you find these pages hopefully. —[[User:Siroxo| siro χ  o

—siroχo]] 05:13, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said in the Logic talk page, I found the articles and misstyped them. Losing patience with howlong the long edit was taking, I guess.  Thanks for the comment, though  Charles Stewart 07:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Organon
Sorry I interfered too quickly. I thought it was another case of breaking up an entry into meaningless entrylets. I suppose some text is coming? Wetman 07:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * In the long run there's enough material to justify full articles for all of the books of the Organon, but for now I am just creating pages for Prior Analytics (about a week or so ago) and De Interpretatione, since they are relevant to content I am creating as part of my great Logic editing drive. I know what content I want to put in, but maybe it takes some time to apply it, until then they would remain sub-stubs  Charles Stewart 07:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

howdy! --The Cunctator

Argumention and politics
Hello! I appreciate your comments on the talk pages and your contributions to articles. My interest in logic and argument is more a matter of urgency, perhaps felt more vividly on this side of the Atlantic, where I see a gradual slide from open discourse in the political arena to jingoism, religious fundamentalism and political intimidation. Who knows where this will end. I'd like to see wikipedia at least provide a foundation for some relevant concepts in discourse.CSTAR 17:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I care about these things too, but definitely less than the academic side of logic. It's kind of a topic with strategic significance in Wikipedia, I think: I'm surpirised there aren't more people weighing in on the rights and wrongs of rhetoric. (Oh, long delay, because I'm at conferences at the mo.)  Charles Stewart 17:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lob's Theorem
i welcome the revision on the Lob's theorem page, but the current (which was the original) intro. is completely confusing. i idiotically replied to you in my own talk page. anyway, talking about 'satisfies' there was in regard to the Peano axioms wrt to a particular theory T. i wasn't talking about the satisfiability of axiomatic statements of T. i think it strange to say that the Peano axioms are provable from T, but it works.

also, the formalizing it in modal provability logic has the benefit of abstracting from any particular provability theory. unfortunately i dont' know how to format it using the proper typesetting. the revision was quick and i've no time to look into it now. we can keep the informal definition of lob's theorem as it stands, but it most certainly isn't elegant let alone clear.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem
User_talk:Sundar

Hilbert's problems
I see you have put a disputed notice on Hilbert's problems. Is this perhaps a bit extreme ? The usage guidelines suggest only using the disputed notice if there are more than 5 dubious or inaccurate statements in an article, whereas I think you have only highlighted two statements that you disagree with. Also, Mathworld seems to verify that Hilbert's first and second problems are generally accepted as having been solved. I'm all in favour of a debate - it's one of the joys of Wikpedia - but I do think the disputed notice is going too far. Gandalf61 09:18, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not very experienced yet, so I could be misusing the feature, but I regard the problems are serious: as it stands what the page implies about the first two problems does not reflect what professional logicians know about the problem, and the second is actually silly (I am disappointed to see that MathWorld belongs to the ranks of the confused on this point). I could move the disputed tag to two dubious tags in the table, but I doubt this would work properly.  Charles Stewart 09:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * So can I make a suggestion ? Why not make the changes that you think are required to make the article factually accurate, and then remove the disputed notice ? That way everyone can see what your changes are, and they can be debated (if necessary) on the article's discussion page. Gandalf61 15:26, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Quantum logic
There is a link to the article on quantum logic in the logic page. It would be a useful project to try to add some intro material to that article to make it accessible to somebody reading the logic page (so far I have been the only contributor to that page -- for all I know I may be its only reader).

One fact to note that it is not really about logic as much as a semantics for a logic. The logic I guess would be the free algebra generated by a set S modulo relations which are true for in representations of S as self-adjoint projections.

This would have some significance for logic in at least giving some plausibility to the Putnamist notion that logic is empirical. (I am not sure I believe this, although I have a lot sympathy for this view since I have a lot of empiricist blood running in my veins) CSTAR 20:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "Is logic empirical?" is a good subsection for Logic, with a discussion of quantum logic there. I take a position derived from Wittgenstein: what's true in logic is an abstraction from conventions that our practice of assertions depend upon.  So I take quantum logic seriously as a rival logic, but I have an argument in my doctoral thesis that shows that usual "or" and quantum "or" cannot both be logical connectives of the same language; I take this to show that quantum logic is a weak rival (I think intuitionistic logic has a stronger case), but you could reach a different conclusion.  Would you be willing to start that subsection?  Charles Stewart 12:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah I'll start it in the next few days --- although I admit I may be in over my depth here.CSTAR 16:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Great. I'll take a close look at whatever you write.  Charles Stewart 18:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added the Is logic empirical subsection as per our discussion. There are several issues which require additional comment or about which I am not entirely satisfied:

 * 1) The subsection centers around the Putnam-Finkelstein papers, though the idea is surely older than that (preceding the Birkhoff-von Neumann work on quantum logic).  My previous remark I'm in over my depth meant that I have no appreciation of the philosophical historical development here.
 * 2) More to the point, I'm not sure I understand Putnam's argument -- what I wrote down is my understanding of his presentation, which is (in my view) drawn around the analogy between Euclidean -- Non Euclidean geometry and Boolean logic -- Quantum logic.
 * 3) Notice I replaced Putnam's non-Euclidean geometry exposition with something else --- mechanics and relativity.  One peculiarity of Putnam's writings is that he tries to appeal to a larger audience than might be warranted for a technical philosopher.  This expository style sometimes obscures his technical points.  His motives may have resulted from Putnam's political views of another era.
 * 4) My rendering of empiricism is probably abhorrent to most philosophers (it seems to  be a crappy rendition of operationalism).  But I think that for the limited purpose of this article crappy operationalism suffices.  Anyway it appeals to me.

CSTAR 22:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(I changed your bullet points into an enumeration, above) I don't really have time to give a proper reaction to what you have wrote before Thursday; I'll put my comments on the Logic talk page when I do. For now, responding to your points as they are numbered: I think I'll pass on the remarks to a philosopher, to see if he can give me any useful pointers. May as well get on top of this stuff, while the subject has come up. Charles Stewart 08:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Neither do I, but I have a couple of books sitting on my shelf that address the argument, and I'll take a look at them.  I think what you have written is the germ of a full-length article, which we should create (I'll do that).
 * 2) I'll check this point.
 * 3) Sounds rigt.
 * 4) I think it's fine.

Logical Argument: Thanks for being informative
I am touched that as an RV-er, you informed me, and left relavant notes in the talk page. If only all wikipedians were as thoughtful. Let us continue any discussion at the said talk page. (20040302)

 * Replied at 20040302#Logical_argument Charles Stewart 10:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quine's paper
I have reverted the article on Two Dogmas of Empiricism to the way that the title of the paper appears in the body of the article. Capitalization of published work is retained in the title of the article. Cheers,[[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 19:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nobelists
Just a thought. I was doing New Page patrol and saw that you had a new page on List of for the Nobels. Did you check the Nobel Prize article? I believe it breaks down to categories, and there is already a List of Nobel Prize winners for each category. Perhaps a category tag would be better, and that way you could recombine those later for a master list. Geogre 16:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Very many thanks! I'm in the middle of a complex edit, and that is timely information  Charles Stewart 16:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hilbert's 1st Problem
Hi, I have changed the status of Hilbert's 1st problem to solved as I believe that is the commonly accepted state of the problem in the mathematical community. I know you were in a discussion of what the status would be and so I would appreciate your input on my reasons. I have given them in more detail Talk:Hilbert's problems. Thanks a lot Aleph0 02:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment on Hilbert's 1st Problem Change
Hi, I just wanted to say that I think that the footnote answer is an excelent idea. Aleph0 01:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV
(This is a copy of a note I sent to Charles Matthews). A relatively new user has added the POV banner to the logical argument article. I tried to respond to his/her comments, but I noticed that user has added the asme banner to a large range of articles, including physical law and mathematical rigor. Now it's possible this user is trying to make a philosophical point: complete NPOV is not possible. What do you think? CSTAR 03:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The POV banner has been removed, but (as you surely noticed by now) not before someone suggested I put it up via a sock puppet. I suppose part of this is my carelessness
 * In confusing the pagelogical argument with logical fallacy (where indeed the POV banner was placed) which I often do, since I've worked on both and consider them related.
 * Asking you and Charles Matthews the innocent question what do you think? That of course is motivated by a desire for consensus, in determining what to do with the banners, not what do you think in regard to POV.  Geesh generally I try to be as precise as possible, but I guess this time i t wasn't enough.  CSTAR 17:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About Users Critical and CStar
For the record, the user Critical ( talk,  contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on some pages, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.

For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk,  contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page,  Chalst's talk page, and   Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:19, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Response
Pleas see this on the logical fallacy talk page. CSTAR 13:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV'ing
response on my talk page. CSTAR 04:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Relevant logic to Relevance logic moved
Done. Correctly, I hope.CSTAR 01:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other logic pages

 * College logic
 * Good argument
 * Critical thinking

Wouldn't cleanup be desirable and hopefully possible here also? CSTAR 03:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, indeed. In particular, I've been wondering for some time what the right main article for the redlink dialectical logic on the logic page would be, and college logic is the best fit so far.  I don't like it: it smacks of parochial American liberal arts collegeism to me, but its the right place to start, I think.  Cogency isn't awful: in particular it's less important to sort out than the mess in soundness and validity (currently on my priority to do list).  Critical thinking is ghastly, and a lousy name to boot, but its got a cleanup tag already, I see.  Charles Stewart 04:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Informal logic and logical argument might be fused; I've worked on both, only because they were already there. I wouldn't have started them both. Logical fallacy could use some improvement. The actual list of logical fallacies is in urgent need of population control. Abstinence doesn't appear to be working here (Does it ever?).CSTAR 18:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critical thinking
That article really is awful. Why is Edward de Bono given such prominent mention? Actually, who the Hell is Edward de Bono? He's got a pretty lame website Well at least we don't have Florentin Smarandache to contend with. CSTAR 00:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * do Bono is a management consultant who became famous-for-five-minutes with his ideas about "six hats" that represent six styles of thinking about a topic. Never heard of Smarandache  Charles Stewart 11:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Logic featured article status
I'm not sure whether it was my idea to make it a featured article -- actually it may have been your idea. But in any case, I agree with it. I would like to see more references to semantics in the logic articles generally. The main logic article itself makes some timid references to semantics.

Yep the see also section is a complete mess. Let's farm it out.CSTAR 19:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

indie record label
Sorry, I did not know the protocol. --Smooth Henry 18:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bell's theorem
In response to your comment over on Charles Matthews talk page:

As it turned out Sterling Newberry finally (and quite independently) removed the POV banner; hopefully this ends the story. However, there was something very disturbing in the whole episode.

As I mentioned, CT has a very public agenda which she freely admits, allows for no compromise with accepted interpretations and formalism of quantum mechanics. Or rather, I should say her proposed compromise was that (to paraphrase her) she (i.e. local realism) gets Bell's theorem and peripheral pages because QM has taken up the rest.

I did take the time to read her webpages---They're utter lunacy. She rejects Michelson-Morley, postulates the existence of an aether, seems to suggest electrons don't exist etc. etc. It is pretty pathetic reading how she gets continually rejected by the establishment. She may not be quite as bad as Archimedes Plutonium, but at least there is something endearing and funny about him.

Surely we should be able to deal with such crankery a little more expeditiously. This whole rewrite of the page has taken two days shy of a month. CSTAR 22:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I saw that there was something untoward going on a while back, and a few days ago found time to follow (at least in part) the issue. She is, at first glance, sort of plausible: with Archimedes Plutonium one knew straight off he was wrong, and it was a puzzle to figure out why, while with Caroline I was wondering: maybe there is a defensible case here... it took quite a while before I sorted out in my own mind: no, really there isn't beyond the generic "perhaps things don't exist" sort of skepticism;
 * As for efficiency, I think the current NPOV policy makes the task of timewasters a bit too easy, as does the lousy presentation of the NPOV policy on the policy page (the NPOV tutorial is much more use). Still, it's not been a complete waste of time: I think you'd agree the current pages are better for the work that has gone into them: just don't think of the better ways you could have used the time...  I do have one comment: you let CT personalise the discussion on the talk pages in places, which suited her very well: she turned courteous concessions into evidence that her interlocutors really agreed with her.  Charles Stewart 00:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I did have the feeling that she was able to turn courteous concessions around into support for her position, although it would be helpful to extract some specific examples. I suppose this could be a case study. There were various stages

 * The initial POV banner (put there by User:DrChinese calling attention to her self-promotion and POV and subsequent discussion of what to do about it. This lasted about a week. Everyone, myself included, seemed quite reluctant to do anything about it. CT has become well-known in WP as a "difficult" person.  My previous encounter with CT on the EPR paradox had already confirmed that.  That experience was softened somewhat by the fact that User:CYD actually did most of the edits, although there was quite a bit of input from me in the talk page.
 * My initial rewrite, followed by an immediate, shrill revert by CT (with no explanation other than the edit summary "revert!" as though calling to arms) and a subsequent revert by Lethe and a warning that he would revert any major reversion of hers.
 * CT's persistent taunts and relentless personal attacks (I paraphrase, but fairly I think: "you clearly don't understand Bell's theorem", "I suspect your qualifications are minimal", "I'm defending science", "Bell's theorem is not maths", "you've ruined the page" etc, etc.) That really wore me down. At one point I just told her "You have no idea what you are talking about", after she  had complained about an edit which she clearly had not understood. I suppose that was the low point for me. CSTAR 05:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If the matter comes down to an RfC, as I suspect it will eventually, then maybe thinking of it in case study terms is helpful. Surely then CT will cite your personal comments as evidence that she was only giving as good as she got, but the arbitrators are more likely to be astonished at your self control.  When I talked abput personalising, I guess the contrast I would make would be with a crisp, cold, bureaucratic way of handling her ("I refer you back to point #17, re. your 7th PIV edit on this page..."); normal friendliness seems to be a mistake with her (as I suspect was the case with all her scientific correspondents who she claims think highly of her investigations)  Charles Stewart 09:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * While we're at at, could you please have a look at interpretation of quantum mechanics, and particularly the section on instrumentalism. I think you may have something useful (and hopefully helpful!) to say. This is not currently CT related, fortunately. It initially was however, since her "QM seems bogus" POV was very prominent before I started editing it.   CSTAR 17:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Bah, I look at the article and the only thing that happebns is that I realise I have to understand Consistent histories if I am to be able to talk knowledgably about quantum logic... But, seriously, I think that User:Charles Matthews has picked up anything that I might have.  Charles Stewart 22:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm hoping for a cross-over collaboration by philosophers, logicians, mathematicians and physicists on various articles of widespread relevance. That risks embarrasment of course (I hope I didn't seem too ridiculous on possible worlds, not to mention "le Théorème de la Cloche").CSTAR 23:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Linking between namespaces
Hi there, Charles! After you left a message on my talk page, I went ahead and performed the obligatory hmmm let's see who sent me this message inquiry. I noticed that you'd linked to your userpage from Charles Stewart, but it's generally considered bad practice to link to other namepsaces from the main namespace. If someone wrote a Wikipedia article on you, then by all means, feel free to link to it. But as most people aren't notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia biography, and autobiographies are discouraged, I'm guessing there's no Charles A. Stewart article around :-) So I've removed the link to your userpage, and I hope you understand. Best wishes and happy editing! --David Iberri | Talk 00:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

POV warrior
I just noticed your comments now about "POV warrior." Huh? I don't think I ever talked to you before. This was our first conflict (and I would say a rather minor one) on an article, and you immediately made that derogatory remark before I even posted my first comment on the talk page. Interesting OneGuy 04:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No, but I'd checked out your editing on some other pages and wasn't looking forward to your involvement on these pages. But in fact I have no complaints about the way you've argued your position, and I agree you've been sorely provoked in those edits.  I regret saying that, and I'll retract the claim on the talk page.  Charles Stewart 08:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible Worlds
A bit over a week ago, I wrote on the Talk:Possible worlds page:
 * I've thought a bit about the dispute between CSTAR and Mel, and I think I know what's going on. Mel has a very tight conception of what the alethic modalities are, which I think means he thinks S5 is the right axiomatisation of possibility: given this then the two disputed points that Mel reinstated from the possible worlds/ many worlds comparison are seen to be valid.  I've deleted them again, because I think as it stands Mel is using a conception of modality that is itself disputed, so his points are POV.

I'd like to revisit the possible worlds article, and I'd like to know where you stand, because I think you have a valuable take on the question. I guess the question is: where do you stand on the question of acceptable axiomatisations of alethic modalities? Did I read you aright? Charles Stewart 22:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry to have disappeared from the discussion — it's so easy to get distracted on Wikipedia. My personal view is that different modal systems are appropriate for different purposes (so in this I follow Lemmon), but I also think that S5 most closely captures our ordinary modal intuitions (though I can see a case for S4).  For that reason I go along with most writers in assuming S5 unless doing so begs an important question.  In introducing possible worlds, especially, I assume S5 (if only because not doing so would make the introduction too cumbersome), but I return to the issue of the choice between alternative systems when it becomes relevant (as in Plantinga's modal argument for the existence of god).  That's why I approached the Wikipedia article as I did.
 * I'm particularly wary about getting too technical and detailed in this area, because it's so easy to overdo it — especially as my doctoral thesis was on possible worlds. Yoo much knowledge can get in the way of writing introductions.  Having said that, to be honest I tred to keep my thesis as non-technical as possible, because my main interest was in the ontological status of possible worlds. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comments. I guess what I would like to say about the status of S5 is that, if we accept Dummett's claim that bivalence about truth is realism in semantical form, so we should say that asserting S5 to be the correct alethic modality is modal realism in analogically semantical form.  Charles Stewart 02:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Soory for the delay again. I'm not at all sure of the idea that to choose S5 is to accept modal realism.  The reverse is probably true (though I'd have to think about it), but there are plenty of people who have chosen S5, and whose arguments depend upon that choice, but who are certainly not modal realists (Alvin Plantinga, for one). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Crispin Wright, in "Anti-realism and revisionism", criticised Dummett's thesis on the grounds that there are both realists who reject principle of the excluded middle, and non-realists who accept it. With modal realism, I can see how a modal anti-realist might nonetheless argue that S5 is the right alethic modality, I would guess that most people who hold this position would also be happy with the idea that one can embrace PEM and reject bivalence; the reverse implication seems to me to be very strong, though: pace your idea that modal realists ought to reject S5, I don't see how they can. '''Oops, sorry; by “the reverse” I meant that choosing modal realism might entail the choice of S5. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)''' Roughly, my argument is that: There's little holes in the above that devious theories can wriggle through, but I guess the wriggling is not very confortable. Charles Stewart 12:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For sake of simplicity, let us say that we modalities are modalities of a normal modal logic. This isn't a triviality, but it makes the argument easier to phrase;
 * It appears that the modal realist is then committed to there being a right alethic modality: the modality is characterised by (i) the set of possible worlds the modal realism posists, and (ii) the truth-values of sentences involving althetic modalities will tell us what the accessibility relation is;
 * Any alethic modality is committed to the T-axiom: []p -> p; what must further be the case for an alethic modality to be S5-like is that (i) it is not degenerate (so []p is not the same as p), and (ii) it is Euclidean, ie. any worlds accessible from here are accessible from each other. It's a standard result that S5 is maximal, ie. you if you add new axioms of propositional modal logic, parametric in their propositional letters to S5, either these axioms were theorems already or the resulting logic is degenerate.
 * Modal realism, to be non-trivial, isn't degenerate;
 * What's real can't depend on what's actual, so what's accessible from here should be accessible anywhere, so we have Euclideanity.

Anti-Islamism
Charles, regarding the stub you created. Is your definition accurate? Online sources suggest that the term is used to refer to anti-Muslim sentiment. Your stub is already the first entry under a Google search for anti-Islamism, and a lot of Muslims deny there's such a thing as Islamism as such (as a distinct political movement), so it could end up being a tricky, inherently POV article. What do you think? SlimVirgin 00:06, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * The objections to the old meaning of anti-islamism have been like a running sore for over 4 months now, and you're the first person to defend the old meaning. I suspect that almost all of the online references derive from the wikipedia usage: certainly my recollection back then was that the online references did not support the wikipedia usage.   Charles Stewart 00:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't reply to your question: my gut feeling is that it is impossible to write anything on this topic that wouldn't constitute a "tricky, inherently POV article", but then I heartily loathe the whole mess this topic has been, and it is, at long last, getting better. Charles Stewart 00:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that an article existed elsewhere on this. I've only seen your stub. I also don't know what the old and new meanings are. The sources I saw on Google weren't Wikipedia-related by and large; they were Muslim websites and Arab newspaper articles mainly. I think the problem with defining anti-Islamism as opposition to Islamism is (a) not everyone agrees that there's such a thing as Islamism, and (b) that aside, most people, I would say, have never heard of it. So the term, pro or anti, is a battleground: almost by definition POV and inclining toward original research, in the same way that Jewish ethnocentrism was, which has thankfully just been deleted. SlimVirgin 00:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * What is now called Criticism of Islam was, until not many hours ago, called Anti-Islamism. There's lots of discussion on the talk pages, and elsewhere.  I would have preferred to have both of these articles merged into Islamophobia, but there's no real chance of a consensus to do this, hence the three articles.  Charles Stewart 00:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I've deleted most of what was there, which perhaps I shouldn't have, but it was all so tawdry, and with no references. I would agree with you about having all the issues dealt with under one roof. The problem is that, if this article is to deal with legitimate criticism, a lot of the sources, and perhaps all, that could be used (I'm thinking of Daniel Pipes, for example) will be dismissed as Islamophobes; so I wonder where you will find sources that others will regard as fair. SlimVirgin 01:30, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your intervention has been perfectly inspired. Pipes is an Islamophobe, but he still has arguments worth attending to (maybe Huntingdon is in the same category).  I think it is possible to do justice to him.  Charles Stewart 01:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I see the term Islamophobe as neutral myself (meaning fear of, or dislike of, but leaving aside whether the reasons for that are good or bad), but I'm probably in the minority in interpreting it that way. Pipes is a scholar and I would regard him as an excellent source, bearing in mind that he is extreme and resolute, but I know others won't accept him as a source, or anyone else who is knowledgeable and critical, so I foresee a future of hideous revert wars or else an article with zero sources. I therefore feel the way to proceed might be to draw up an acceptable list of sources in advance of writing the article, and to seek consensus for it, because we can only proceed to writing if we know we will have sources. SlimVirgin 02:05, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't regard him as maintaining scholarly standards: he wrote a misrepresentation of the religious significance of Jihad to muslims that was so extreme that, given his depth ofr reading, can only have been dishonest. I think Christopher Hitchens is pretty much right on with this.  The thing about Pipes, though, is he is a crystal clear writer, and very thorough, and so no matter how polluted his motives, he often comes up with the goods.  Plus he is a not just a commentator, but a feature of the landscape: he is subject matter, as well as source.  My opinion is that we press ahead with a merge, and not worry about tackling the difficulties until we actually know what shape they take.  I doubt that a quiet life is an option with this one.  Charles Stewart 02:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Luftangriff auf Dresden
Hello Charles Stewart, for the moment the article on German Wikipedia isn't ready yet, we had some problems last days because of a started edit war. But there is hope, that all participants, specially "Benutzer:Jesusfreund (User Jesusfreund)" don't give up and find a solution about the question, witch historical facts are proofed and how the text should be like. If this problem is solved I think, you will be supported in the translation. Sorry, my English is bad - I am not the person, who ever could translate ;-) - Have a nice day, --Nocturne 07:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Full agreement to Nocturne. The article will perhaps (probably) never be ready. The reason is the matter itself. The discussions that take place about it are were very much alike yours, lingering between the positions of Jörg Friedrich and/or Frederick Taylor. But we have to admit yours are much cooler and less emotional in dealing with revisionism like David Irving f.e.. I was just about to recommend it to some of our participants, when your message arrived!
 * I will translate the "Gedenken"-section of the article in a few days, as soon as possible. But personally I think this section is pretty much a reflection of the specific German situation. As you know, we are facing a gathering of perhaps 5000 Neonazis and revisionists on February 13th in Dresden. Stressing the partnership of Dresden and Coventry citizens in the article is also a reaction to that. But none-the-less this partnership has a political impact for the future, and therefore it can not be overestimated in it´s relevance for the matter.

 * Thank you very much for contacting. Benutzer:Jesusfreund on German Wikipedia --217.83.36.165 12:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Strangeley enough, I can´t see my previous message to you, although it´s here in the source-scripture. I just want to tell you translation is on its way. Some terms I had to subscribe and grammar isn´t all that perfect also, due to my limited english. Excuse it please. Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.83.46.133 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Memory
On February 13th each year memory events take place in Dresden. All Dresden church bells ring at 10:13 PM – the exact time when the bombing started that day. In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the attacks, a bell sinphony was performed including all bells of the city. In 2002, citizens of Dresden and its partnertown Coventry, which had also been hit severly by German bombing in World war II, came together. Following the motto „Build bridges – live forgiveness and brotherhood („Versöhnung“) they put up a sign against war and hate. They met at the Dresden „Frauenkirche“ (womans church) which had been totally destroyed by the attacks. In the meantime it has been restored almost completely. This rebuilding was successful because of the activities of mainly British and German fundraising clubs.

Parallel to that old and new right wing extremists try to abuse the anniversaries of the bombings for their gatherings and revisionist propaganda. The number of demonstrators which follow the invitation of the „Junge Landsmannschaft Ostpreußen“ (young landfellows of east prussia) is increasing continuously. The date has developed to be one of the biggest regular events including Neonazis from all over Germany and other countries. Gouvernor Georg Milbradt (CDU-party) therefor has rejected to overtake the „leadership“ for the event in 2005, which Holger Apfel (NPD-party) then accepted for himself.

Their prefered term „bombing Holocaust“ is meant to relativate the Holocaust and to describe the complete warfare of the Allied coalition as a crime, in order to put the guilt for the war on them and to minimize or even deny the German guilt. They abuse some historical facts for that purpose, f.e. the planned and worked out mass destuction of the central city of Dresden which didn´t make much military sense. They want to describe Germanys former enemies, especially the US, as outstanding inhumane and cruel, comparing their behavior to German war crimes thus justifying these. This ideological abuse one cannot find in the National Democratic Party (NPD) only but it is also a widespread mentality.

As a reaction, some Antifascists groups try to oppose this abuse with paroles like „German actors are no victims“, „No tears for Dresden“ or „Bomber-Harris do it again“. They fear the „breaking-a-taboo“-approach of the historical discussion about German war victims will continously justify Nazi thought and behavior. Protesting this they celebrate the bombing of Dresden as a necessary part of winning the military fight against Nazi-Germany.

The city council of Dresden therefore forbids any demonstration in the center of Dresden on that day every year. But moreover, it tries to regain initiative for the way of celebrating the memory day with its own events. A very important part of that are the partnership contacts with the city of Coventry and the Church work for „Versöhnung“. Both try to build up understanding beyond national limits for the fact that German guilt of war cannot be weighed with others war crimes. There is no doubt possible that Germany started the war and its crimes cannot be relativated. But what happened in the war was an increasing abstraction of the warfare from rational aims. This tendency cannot be looked at by isolating it from the criminal plans and actions of Nationalsocialism. But also, the Allied bombings of populated cities cannot be interpreted as a necessary and unevitable reaction to these Nazi crimes.

Most of the survivors of the bombings who suffered unmeasurable pain and their relatives conclude from their terrifying war experiences: Remembering all the victims on both sides together, humanely, without accusations, is the best healing - instead of the undignified counting and comparing of victims and distributing guilt portions.

Greetings, Jesusfriend (February 11, 2005) --217.83.44.117 20:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wish to complain about the usage in the Bombing of Dresden page of the terms "self-taught, controversial, Holocaust denier David Irving" especially in light of the fact that you give a link to his Wikipedia page as well. Why the labels if people can easily look up(on the site no less) who he is and what he is about? It doesn´t make any sense then. I mean one could have said "Nazi Propoganda Minister Joseph Goebbels" but you didn´t. It seems odd to put lables on one person but not another. Also I do not like the connection between the number of deaths and the fact that he is a holocaust denier. Not all people who dispute the numbers are holocaust deniers and to combine the two as if it is an automatic thing is to deny the dignity of those who dispute the numbers.

 * User:DM123 I have explained in several places why I think it is important to include the label holocaust denier when speaking of David Irving in the context of the Dresden Bombing. Also, please sign posts on talk pages.  Charles Stewart 10:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course one has to mention the quality or non-quality of a "source" like Irving in an encyclopedia which collects knowlegde based on facts. Don´t identify with a lyer, so you cannot feel insulted.
 * Sorry Charles, just wanted to tell you there are more precise informations about the reconciliation contacts between Coventry and Dresden now on the discussion page of the article. And I´m looking further. Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.95.52.4 11:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subjunctive and alethic modalities
Thanks for your question about the usage of "subjunctive" and "alethic." The quick answer is that the "subjunctive" / "epistemic" contrast comes from David Chalmers. The longer answer is that Chalmers frames the distinction as a distinction between subjunctive and epistemic (modalities, content) because he approaches the difference from the difference between indicative-mood conditionals and past-subjunctive-mood conditionals, which lines up with the metaphysical/epistemic modality distinction. ("If I am the King of France, then I'll have their heads cut off" vs. "If I were the King of France, then I'd have their heads cut off"). For myself, I usually prefer framing the distinction in terms of metaphysical vs. epistemic modalities; but "subjunctive" vs. "epistemic" currently seems to be the most widely used across WikiPedia articles (see e.g. Logical possibility), so it seems as good a candidate as any for adoption.

Of course, I'm hardly wedded to this; if you think there are strong reasons not to frame it this way, let me know and we'll see what we can work out.

—Radgeek 13:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chalst/archive-1


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of Saddam Hussein

I count 6 delete, 4 keep and 1 no vote. Rossami (updated by +sj)
 * It doesn't seem you counted my vote, then. from anthony
 * Comment: Actually, I interpreted your vote as delete since the discussion on the related talk pages did not seem to favor merging and since a redirect would create a circular link. Furthermore, since deleting the page does not affect the underlying images, no GFDL history is lost. WhisperToMe was the "no vote" in my tentative count. If I interpreted your vote incorrectly, please clarify it. In either case, as I said in the edit summaries, I've now voted in this particularly contentious debate and have recused myself from making the decision. Rossami 02:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I must have miscounted something else then. anthony (see warning) 11:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I moved the page to List of images/People/Saddam Hussein and removed the fair use images, since it is against the policy on List of images. 172 reverted me a couple times, even removing, but he later gave up.

 * This was your first mistake, Guanaco. You shouldn't have moved the page in the first place, as both articles are quite different. Images of Saddam Hussein is for ALL images of Saddam which are not in the Saddam article, and Wikipedia:List of images is ONLY for public domain images. As I couldn't revert the mess you had made (ie. moving the page), I had to copy and paste to get the original page back. Guanaco, you have to calm down. Such unilateral acts are not permitted in Wikipedia. --Cantus 09:46, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus copy-and-pasted the old version back into Images of Saddam Hussein, calling me a "paranoid assh*** [sic]" in the edit summary. It is pointless to have a gallery of images that cannot be freely reused. When fair use images are used to illustrate an article, they are not the most important part of the text. If they were, they wouldn't be fair use. It is ridiculous for us to upload various images from various sources and claim "fair use" so we can put them in our gallery.

Images of Saddam Hussein should be deleted and redirected to List of images/People/Saddam Hussein. Guanaco 01:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just delete, no redirect. It's a clear violation of what Wikipedia entries are not item 19: A collection of photographs.... I see there are currently both VfD and copyvio notices on the page. One is wrong, I suspect that it's not really a copyvio which would refer to the text of this page, rather it's the images that are alleged to by in copyright violation. What a mess. Andrewa 02:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The copyvio notice refers to the copy and paste move of the way the images are arranged and presented. Guanaco 02:44, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's not what the copyvio process is designed to deal with. Cantus has now removed the copyvio notice, I suggest we leave it off. Andrewa 20:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Item 19 actually says: A collection of photographs with no text to go with the articles. Apparently, there is plenty of text in Saddam Husein article. Nikola 06:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of images is a better place for the free ones and we've got too many fair use images of Saddam as it is. Something needs to be done with the delinked non-free images though. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The images are taken from old regime footage. Saddam Hussein isn't going to sue Wikipedia. 172 09:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * More to that point, he can't. Iraq does not have a copyright treaty with the United States. anthony (see warning) 23:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Would that make the images ? I still stand by this listing and the copyvio listing, because this is about what Wikipedia is not and the terms of the GFDL.  Guanaco 00:02, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you can show that the images were first published in Iraq, yes, they'd be PD-US. I don't understand your point on the terms of the GFDL. A list of 5 or 6 links is not copyrightable.  I've asked on your talk page for you to explain it to me, though. anthony (see warning) 00:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is different from the page at Wikipedia:List of images, which only lists Public Domain images. Thus this gallery is quite necessary, as it lists images which are not in the main Saddam Hussein article, which would otherwise be lost. Guanaco is on a nasty crusade to remove all non Public Domain-only images from the face of Wikipedia. --Cantus 09:27, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * List of images lists more than just public domain images. I don't think it's very fair for you to accuse me of being "on a nasty crusade".
 * Delete. I agree with Andrewa. This is a gallery of images. No matter the fair use/public domain debate, it doesn't matter, as this page is invalid. Lyellin 14:04, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Saddam Hussein and redirect. Alternatively, delete. Please don't create a cross namespace redirect.  We should be doing so only with extreme caution. anthony (see warning) 23:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The main reason this was created was because 172 was objecting to having a huge amount of pictures in the Saddam Hussein article. WhisperToMe 03:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Creating an article which violates what Wikipedia is not is not a valid solution to an article dispute. If we added a significant amount of text about the images (the images themselves, not what is depicted in them), this would become a legitimate article, though.  anthony (see warning) 10:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. How is this different than images of sheep or gallery of flags? Images of sheep is even mentioned on Image use policy as an example of a way to use images. Nikola 15:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good points. Gallery of flags (which is actually a redirect to Gallery of national flags BTW) is a different issue IMO, in that the article presents encyclopedic information in a purely graphical form. Images of sheep is a bit more complex, and currently also redirects to List of images/Nature/Animals/Sheep. The List of images project is in the project namespace, not the article, so there's a bit more leeway as to content. I was leaving the question as to whether this is itself valid until we decide on this page, because IMO if we keep this page, the image lists project clearly stays too. If we keep any of them, then IMO we need to change the image policy because Wikipedia will then include a gallery of images. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * List of images is a valuable project, and as you said it's not in the article namespace, but it serves different purpose: collecting of free images; if I understand it well, for example, it might even include images of non-notable people or places, if they are free. Now, Images of Saddam Hussein is in article namespace and has a different goal: illustrating the article about Saddam Hussein. The images are various, depict Saddam in various ways (Saddam in civillian clothing, in uniform, in propaganda, on a banknote...), perhaps one or two of them are redudant, but the bulk add to readers' knowledge about Saddam. Someone who reads article on sheep, has never seen a sheep and wants to know how a sheep looks like, should be presented with various images of sheep: ewe, ram, lamb, a flock of sheep, white sheep, black sheep, white and black sheep, various sheep races, depictions of sheep in art. Such images add vastly to his or hers knowledge on sheep even if not accompanied with a lot of text. Saddam is no different.
 * I have Opća Enciklopedija, an encyclopedia published in Yugoslavia; as examples, article about mushrooms has two pages of color pictures showing edible, unedible and poisonous mushrooms; article about illumination (art of beautifying handwritten books) is actually a three-sentence stub, but has a color page showing various illuminations, in addition to four black&white illustrations near the article itself; article about Greeks has two b&w pages showing Greek art; article about renaissance has two b&w pages showing renaissance architecture and art. Apparently, encyclopedias do have such a contents.
 * To sum all of this: IMO, both pages should stay. List of images/People/Saddam Hussein should contain free images of Saddam Hussein, for the purpose of having free images of Saddam Hussein at one place so that they could be easily found and used wherever needed. Images of Saddam Hussein should contain characteristical not-neccesarily-free images of Saddam Hussein for the purpose of informing readers of Saddam Hussein article how does Saddam Hussein looks like without cluttering the article. Nikola 06:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this article - What Wikipedia is not item 19. Pictures should add to the article, not be the article. Note that deleting the article will not delete the underlying images. They are still available to anyone who wants to use them in an article that meets the standards. If you're that worried about losing track of them, I suggest creating a list of links (but not a gallery) on the main article's Talk page. Rossami 03:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is actually not an article, but a subarticle of Saddam Hussein. Like Transportation in Russia vs Russia or Demographic history of Montenegro vs Montenegro. Each of these articles would probably be deleted without their main articles. Nikola 17:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If those main articles did not exist, Transportation in Russia etc. would be moved to Russia etc. Guanaco 21:33, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep/move. VfD is not a place for working out policy disputes.  No suitable alternative page been proposed for this full list of images; please work out where, if anywhere, this page should move to, on the article Talk page (perhaps Saddam Hussein/Images?).  +sj +  02:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
List of bridges in Cambridge

The following is a list and brief history of the bridges in Cambridge, England, principally those over the River Cam of which there are 25, soon to be 26.

The River Cam enters Cambridge from the south west of the city and heads north past many of the historic colleges of the University of Cambridge along the open area known as The Backs. After passing St John's College, it turns sharply and runs east, passing the weir at Jesus Green and the boathouses alongside Midsummer Common. Passing Chesterton, it turns north again and leaves the city, running a further 12 mi before merging with the Great Ouse at Pope's Corner to the south of Ely.

Trumpington Bridge (1790)
The most upstream bridge in Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency) lies along Grantchester Road between Grantchester and Trumpington. Also known as Brasel Bridge, this 1790 brick bridge replaced a wooden bridge at the site of a ford.

Sheep's Green Footbridge (1910)
Links Coe Fen behind The Leys School over a second small bridge to Lammas Land, near the area known as Hobson's Paradise. Also known as Sheep's Green bridge, it was closed in the second quarter of 2006 to replace the steps with ramps to make it easier for cyclists and prams to cross. The bridge decking was also replaced.

Fen Causeway Bridge (1926)
The first road bridge that is reached as the river enters the city. The road was formally opened on 9 December 1926.

Crusoe Bridge (1898–99)
A steel footbridge with timber deck and supported on four cast-iron columns, linking Sheep's Green and Coe Fen, and the final bridge on the 'Upper River' before it reaches the small weir at the mill pond.

Darwin College Bridges
Two wooden bridges within the college grounds connecting the main site with the college's two islands.

Silver Street Bridge (1958)
The site of bridges back to the 14th century, a cast iron bridge was built in 1843 but increasing heavy traffic led to a 1913 survey that determined the need for a new bridge. Repairs, however, allowed the bridge to last for a further 40 years. The present wide bridge, clad in Portland stone was designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens in 1932 and built in 1958–9.

Mathematical Bridge, Queens' College (1902)
This is the third version of the design, first built in 1749.

King's College Bridge (1819)
The first bridge on the site was built in the 15th century, but situated around 20 metres to the north, and was rebuilt several times before moving to the present incarnation in 1819, designed by William Wilkins and built by Francis Braidwood.

Clare College Bridge (1640)
The oldest of Cambridge's current bridges, this bridge in classical style was built in 1639–40 by Thomas Grumbold (d.1659) It is one of two bridges left standing by the Parliamentarian forces in the Civil War (the other being the Great Bridge, a wooden bridge which has since been destroyed) when Cromwell used the stone from other bridges to refortify Cambridge Castle. Many different stories are told to explain the missing section of the globe second from the left on the south side of the bridge. One rumour is that the builder of the bridge received (what he considered to be) insufficient payment, and in his anger, removed a segment of the globe; another is that complete bridges were subject to a tax at the time it was built, and the missing segment made the bridge incomplete and hence untaxed.

Garret Hostel Bridge (1960)
At least the eighth bridge on this site on Garret Hostel Lane between the colleges of Trinity and Trinity Hall. The current design is by Timothy Guy Morgan, who at the time was an undergraduate student at Jesus College, after an open competition. Morgan died in 1960, before the bridge was completed. It was one of the first post-tensioned concrete bridges in the country. Known to students locally as “orgasm bridge”.

Trinity College Bridge (1764)
Designed by James Essex, it replaced a stone bridge built in 1651, which in turn replaced a stone bridge pulled down in 1643 by Cromwellian soldiers as a defence during the English Civil War. It is a Grade I listed building.

Kitchen Bridge, St John's College (1709–11)
Also known as St John's Old Bridge. The second oldest of Cambridge's remaining bridges, built by Robert Grumbold (1639–1720) according to designs by Sir Christopher Wren. The bridge was crafted from a single block of limestone, carved to give the appearance of masonry.

Bridge of Sighs, St John's College (1831)
Also known as New Court Bridge, it is probably Cambridge's best-known bridge, designed by Henry Hutchinson and based on a similarly named bridge in Venice, although the only real similarity between them is that they are both covered bridges over waterways.. A bridge in Oxford, also nicknamed "The Bridge of Sighs" but more reminiscent of the Rialto Bridge, links two sites of Hertford College, but it bridges New College Lane rather than a river or canal.

Magdalene Bridge (1823)
Named after Magdalene College, which stands nearby. It is very close to the location of the Roman ford (around 50 AD), and the location of the first Roman bridge in Cambridge (probably re-built by Offa in the 8th century).

The latest bridge was designed by Arthur Browne in Gothic revival style and was rebuilt in the same style in 1982.

Jesus Lock footbridge (1892)
An iron bridge over the weir that divides the 'Middle River' from the 'Lower River', where punting gives way to rowing.

Victoria Bridge (1890)
Allowed the residents of Chesterton easy access to the city for the first time. The foundation stone was laid by Frederic Wace, mayor of Cambridge, on 4 November 1889 and the bridge was officially opened by Wace on 11 December 1890. The bridge was rebuilt for strengthening in 1992.

Fort St George footbridge, Midsummer Common (1927)
Named after the Fort St George pub near its southern end, the site was previously home to a ferry that was "probably the busiest of all the river crossings, running from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m". The bridge was built in 1927, and is now open for use by cyclists.

Cutter Ferry Bridge (2005)
A pedestrian and cycle bridge that links Cutter Ferry Lane with Midsummer Common. The original footbridge was closed in 2003 after over 75 years of service, and removed during December 2004. The replacement, over which cyclists may legally cycle, was opened on 20 May 2005.

Also known by Cambridge residents as Pye's Bridge because of the one-time nearby Pye electronics factory, and by student rowers as Emma Bridge because of its proximity to Emmanuel College Boathouse.

Elizabeth Way Bridge (1971)
A plain four-lane concrete road bridge, opened by Lord Butler in his capacity as High Steward of Cambridge on 13 July 1971, this is Cambridge's most recent road bridge. The opening caused a few minutes of embarrassment when Lord Butler's golden scissors failed to cut the ribbon across the road. The bridge forms part of Elizabeth Way (A1134).

Equiano Bridge (formerly Riverside Bridge) (2008)
This foot and cycle bridge connects Chesterton and Riverside near the Museum of Technology. Construction work began in April 2007, and the bridge opened to the public on 5 June 2008. It cost £3.1 million and was partially funded by Tesco to provide increased access to its Newmarket Road store. In 2022 it was renamed to honour writer and abolitionist Olaudah Equiano who had links to the Cambridge area.

Green Dragon bridge, Stourbridge Common (1935)
Named after the Green Dragon pub opposite its northern end, the iron-arch bridge was built in 1935, causing the closure of the nearby Horse Grind and Pike & Eel ferries. Also known to student rowers as 'Chesterton Footbridge' as it crosses over what they know as 'Chesterton Corner'.

Railway Bridge
Crosses the river through east Chesterton, south of the A14 bridge. It is the third railway bridge to be built on this site, replacing a plain plate girder bridge which stood on the site between 1870 and 1930, which itself replaced a wooden bridge built in 1846.

Abbey-Chesterton Bridge (2021)
The Abbey-Chesterton Bridge was installed on 8 November 2020 at Ditton Meadows, immediately downstream (east) of the railway girder bridge. This bridge carries the Chisholm Trail over the River Cam. Estimated cost is £4.5 million. The Abbey-Chesterton Bridge was opened by Jim Chisholm at 13:30 on 23 December 2021.

A14 Bridge
Known (incorrectly) to rowers and others as the "Motorway Bridge". Built as part of the 'Cambridge northern bypass', which opened in 1977, the bridge crosses the river just south of Baits Bite Lock. This bridge is also sometimes referred to as “Bovis Bridge” or "Newnham Bridge".

Footbridge over the weir, Baits Bite Lock
An elevated footbridge crosses Baits Bite Lock in Milton to a narrow islet. A concrete-arch footbridge then crosses the weir to the east bank near Horningsea.

Other bridges

 * The Tony Carter bridge is a covered cycle bridge over the railway just north of Cambridge railway station opened in 1989. It was listed at the time in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's longest covered cycle bridge. It is named after a Labour councillor of the era.
 * The Jane Coston bridge was opened over the A14 in 2004, allowing cyclists and pedestrians to cross from Cowley Road to Milton. It has a central span of 77 m. . Jane Coston is a councillor who campaigned for 8 years for the bridge to be built.
 * Coldham's Lane bridge is a cycle and pedestrian bridge over the railway on the south side of Coldham's Lane. It is not a particularly effective route for cyclists, especially those travelling south east.
 * The Newmarket Road Bridge, the Mill Road Bridge near Cambridge Station, the Hills Road Bridge and the Long Road Bridge are other bridges over the railway.
 * Cambridgeshire Guided Busway: A14 bridge, Hills Road Bridge, Long Road Bridge, Shelford Road Bridge and Hauxton Road Bridge on former railway lines, plus a new Addenbrooke's Bridge leading over the railway line to the hospital.

Mapping

 * Footbridge, Coe Fen, 52.19526°N, 0.11635°W
 * Fen Causeway Bridge, 52.19743°N, 0.11838°W
 * Crusoe Bridge, 52.19821°N, 0.11776°W
 * Darwin College Bridges, 52.20079°N, 0.11437°W
 * Silver Street Bridge, 52.20188°N, 0.11535°W
 * Mathematical Bridge, 52.20219°N, 0.11504°W
 * King's College Bridge, 52.20376°N, 0.11411°W
 * Clare College Bridge, 52.20499°N, 0.1141°W
 * Garret Hostel Bridge, 52.20584°N, 0.11398°W
 * Trinity College Bridge, 52.20665°N, 0.11388°W
 * Kitchen Bridge, 52.20806°N, 0.11564°W
 * Bridge of Sighs, 52.20843°N, 0.11577°W
 * Magdalene Bridge, 52.20984°N, 0.11653°W
 * Jesus Lock footbridge, 52.21286°N, 0.12064°W

 * Victoria Avenue Bridge, 52.21333°N, 0.1257°W
 * Footbridge, Midsummer Common, 52.2124°N, 0.1284°W
 * Cutter Ferry Bridge, 52.21039°N, 0.13439°W
 * Elizabeth Way Bridge, 52.21112°N, 0.13673°W
 * Equiano Bridge, 52.21333°N, 0.14285°W
 * Footbridge, Stourbridge Common, 52.21742°N, 0.14593°W
 * Railway Bridge, 52.22023°N, 0.15643°W
 * Abbey-Chesterton Bridge, 52.22023°N, 0.15676°W
 * A14 Bridge, 52.23238°N, 0.17119°W
 * Footbridge over the weir, Baits Bite Lock, 52.2364°N, 0.17451°W
 * Tony Carter bridge, 52.19584°N, 0.13915°W
 * Jane Coston bridge, 52.23663°N, 0.15589°W
 * Coldham's Lane bridge, 52.20713°N, 0.14713°W
 * Newmarket Road Bridge, 52.21357°N, 0.15176°W
 * Mill Road Bridge, 52.19867°N, 0.14099°W
 * Hills Road Bridge, 52.19067°N, 0.13505°W
 * Long Road Bridge, 52.17959°N, 0.13068°W

title: List of bridges in Cambridge


text:
Doug Allison

Douglas L. Allison (July 12, 1846 – December 19, 1916) was an American Major League Baseball player. He began his career as a catcher for the original Cincinnati Red Stockings, the first fully professional baseball team. Allison was one of the first catchers to stand directly behind the batter, as a means to prevent baserunners from stealing bases. He was considered a specialist, at a time when some of the better batsmen who manned the position normally rested, or substituted at other fielding positions. Allison became the earliest known player to use a type of baseball glove when he donned buckskin mittens to protect his hands in 1870.

Prior to his baseball career, Allison served as a private in Company L of the 192nd Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment during the American Civil War. His brother Art Allison also played in the Major Leagues.

Cincinnati Red Stockings
Not quite 22 years old, Allison moved to Cincinnati for the 1868 season and played for the Cincinnati Red Stockings managed by Harry Wright. Open professionalism was one year away but the long move from Philadelphia, where he worked as a bricklayer, suggests that Allison was somehow compensated by club members, if not by the club. Cincinnati fielded a strong team that year, with five of the famous team already in place. Allison was a defensive specialist, whose job was simply to catch pitcher Asa Brainard.

Most catchers of Allison's era stood twenty to twenty-five feet behind the batter. His technique of moving closer to the batter proved effective in curtailing baserunners from stealing bases. In the 1860s, it was common for teams to score fifty or sixty runs a game, but as the technique of moving closer to the batter became more widespread among other catchers, run production began to plummet, helping usher in what became known as the dead-ball era.

When the National Association of Base Ball Players (NABBP) permitted professionalism, the Red Stockings hired five incumbents including Allison and five new men to complete its roster, the first team that consisted of salaried players. A few of the others had previously played some catcher (all played at the six infield positions in 1868), but Allison filled the role in almost every game. Cincinnati toured the continent undefeated in 1869 and may have been the strongest team in 1870, but the club dropped professional base ball after the second season.

Later career
Harry Wright was hired to organize a new team in Boston, where he signed three teammates for 1871. The other five regulars including Allison signed with Nick Young's Washington Olympics, an established club that also joined the new, entirely professional National Association (NA). The five former Red Stockings led the Olympics to a respectable finish in the inaugural NA season.

Later, Doug Allison played in the Major Leagues with the Troy Haymakers in 1872, the Brooklyn Eckfords in 1872, the Elizabeth Resolutes in 1873, the New York Mutuals from 1873 to 1874, the Hartford Dark Blues from 1875 to 1877, the Providence Grays from 1878 to 1879, and one game with the Baltimore Orioles of the American Association in 1883.

Later life
Allison was reported playing for a post office team in 1882. Thirty-four years later he died in a car accident in Washington, D.C., at age 70, en route to his job at the Post Office Department. He is buried in Rock Creek Cemetery, Washington.

title: Doug Allison


text:
Fukuyama

Fukuyama may refer to:

People

 * Francis Fukuyama, Japanese-American philosopher and political economist
 * Fukuyama (surname), other people with the name

Places

 * Fukuyama, Hiroshima, city in Japan
 * Fukuyama, Kagoshima, former town in Japan, now part of Kirishima city

Other uses

 * Fukuyama congenital muscular dystrophy (FCMD)

title: Fukuyama


text:
Gregory Fortuin

Gregory Fortuin was born in South Africa and has had business and political experience there and in Australia and New Zealand.

In 1998 he was appointed by Nelson Mandela as Honorary Consul to New Zealand.

From April 2001 to October 2002 he was New Zealand's Race Relations Conciliator. During this time he became embroiled in negative publicity, surrounding his attempt to enter the Wellington Club while not wearing a tie, which was in breach of the Club's dress code. Eventually, he conceded that his behaviour during the incident was inappropriate.

He has been praised by Jim Bolger, former National Party Prime Minister, and Ken Douglas, former president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.

Fortuin is also named as a Director of a group of Risk Management companies owned by The Accident Compensation Corporation in New Zealand.

title: Gregory Fortuin


text:
Linguistic universal

A linguistic universal is a pattern that occurs systematically across natural languages, potentially true for all of them. For example, All languages have nouns and verbs, or If a language is spoken, it has consonants and vowels. Research in this area of linguistics is closely tied to the study of linguistic typology, and intends to reveal generalizations across languages, likely tied to cognition, perception, or other abilities of the mind. The field originates from discussions influenced by Noam Chomsky's proposal of a Universal Grammar, but was largely pioneered by the linguist Joseph Greenberg, who derived a set of forty-five basic universals, mostly dealing with syntax, from a study of some thirty languages.

Though there has been significant research into linguistic universals, in more recent time some linguists, including Nicolas Evans and Stephen C. Levinson, have argued against the existence of absolute linguistic universals that are shared across all languages. These linguists cite problems such as ethnocentrism amongst cognitive scientists, and thus linguists, as well as insufficient research into all of the world's languages in discussions related to linguistic universals, instead promoting these similarities as simply strong tendencies.

Terminology
Linguists distinguish between two kinds of universals: (opposite:, often called ) and  (opposite: ). Absolute universals apply to every known language and are quite few in number; an example is All languages have pronouns. An implicational universal applies to languages with a particular feature that is always accompanied by another feature, such as If a language has trial grammatical number, it also has dual grammatical number, while non-implicational universals just state the existence (or non-existence) of one particular feature.

Also in contrast to absolute universals are, statements that may not be true for all languages but nevertheless are far too common to be the result of chance. They also have implicational and non-implicational forms. An example of the latter would be The vast majority of languages have nasal consonants. However, most tendencies, like their universal counterparts, are implicational. For example, With overwhelmingly greater-than-chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are postpositional. Strictly speaking, a tendency is not a kind of universal, but exceptions to most statements called universals can be found. For example, Latin is an SOV language with prepositions. Often it turns out that these exceptional languages are undergoing a shift from one type of language to another. In the case of Latin, its descendant Romance languages switched to SVO, which is a much more common order among prepositional languages.

Universals may also be or. In a bidirectional universal two features each imply the existence of each other. For example, languages with postpositions usually have SOV order, and likewise SOV languages usually have postpositions. The implication works both ways, and thus the universal is bidirectional. By contrast, in a unidirectional universal the implication works only one way. Languages that place relative clauses before the noun they modify again usually have SOV order, so pre-nominal relative clauses imply SOV. On the other hand, SOV languages worldwide show little preference for pre-nominal relative clauses, and thus SOV implies little about the order of relative clauses. As the implication works only one way, the proposed universal is a unidirectional one.

Linguistic universals in syntax are sometimes held up as evidence for universal grammar (although epistemological arguments are more common). Other explanations for linguistic universals have been proposed, for example, that linguistic universals tend to be properties of language that aid communication. If a language were to lack one of these properties, it has been argued, it would probably soon evolve into a language having that property.

Michael Halliday has argued for a distinction between and  categories in resolving the matter of the existence of linguistic universals, a distinction he takes from J.R. Firth and Louis Hjelmslev. He argues that "theoretical categories, and their inter-relations construe an abstract model of language...; they are interlocking and mutually defining". Descriptive categories, by contrast, are those set up to describe particular languages. He argues that "When people ask about 'universals', they usually mean descriptive categories that are assumed to be found in all languages. The problem is there is no mechanism for deciding how much alike descriptive categories from different languages have to be before they are said to be 'the same thing'".

Universal grammar
Noam Chomsky's work related to the innateness hypothesis as it pertains to our ability to rapidly learn any language without formal instruction and with limited input, or what he refers to as a poverty of the stimulus, is what began research into linguistic universals. This led to his proposal for a shared underlying grammar structure for all languages, a concept he called universal grammar (UG), which he claimed must exist somewhere in the human brain prior to language acquisition. Chomsky defines UG as "the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages... by necessity." He states that UG expresses "the essence of human language," and believes that the structure-dependent rules of UG allow humans to interpret and create an infinite number of novel grammatical sentences. Chomsky asserts that UG is the underlying connection between all languages and that the various differences between languages are all relative with respect to UG. He claims that UG is essential to our ability to learn languages, and thus uses it as evidence in a discussion of how to form a potential 'theory of learning' for how humans learn all or most of our cognitive processes throughout our lives. The discussion of Chomsky's UG, its innateness, and its connection to how humans learn language has been one of the more covered topics in linguistics studies to date. However, there is division amongst linguists between those who support Chomsky's claims of UG and those who argued against the existence of an underlying shared grammar structure that can account for all languages.

Semantics
In semantics, research into linguistic universals has taken place in a number of ways. Some linguists, starting with Gottfried Leibniz, have pursued the search for a hypothetic irreducible semantic core of all languages. A modern variant of this approach can be found in the natural semantic metalanguage of Anna Wierzbicka and associates. See, for example, and Other lines of research suggest cross-linguistic tendencies to use body part terms metaphorically as adpositions, or tendencies to have morphologically simple words for cognitively salient concepts. The human body, being a physiological universal, provides an ideal domain for research into semantic and lexical universals. In a seminal study, Cecil H. Brown (1976) proposed a number of universals in the semantics of body part terminology, including the following: in any language, there will be distinct terms for BODY, HEAD , ARM , EYES , NOSE , and MOUTH ; if there is a distinct term for FOOT , there will be a distinct term for HAND ; similarly, if there are terms for INDIVIDUAL TOES , then there are terms for INDIVIDUAL FINGERS. Subsequent research has shown that most of these features have to be considered cross-linguistic tendencies rather than true universals. Several languages like Tidore and Kuuk Thaayorre lack a general term meaning 'body'. On the basis of such data it has been argued that the highest level in the partonomy of body part terms would be the word for 'person'.

Some other examples of proposed linguistic universals in semantics include the idea that all languages possess words with the meaning '(biological) mother' and 'you (second person singular pronoun)' as well as statistical tendencies of meanings of basic color terms in relation to the number of color terms used by a respective language. Some theories of color naming suggest that if a language possesses only two terms for describing color, their respective meanings will be 'black' and 'white' (or perhaps 'dark' and 'light'), and if a language possesses more than two color terms, then the additional terms will follow trends related to the focal colors, which are determined by the physiology of how color is perceived, rather than linguistics. Thus, if a language possesses three color terms, the third will mean 'red', and if a language possesses four color terms, the next will mean 'yellow' or 'green'. If there are five color terms, then both 'yellow' and 'green' are added, if six, then 'blue' is added, and so on.

Counterarguments
Nicolas Evans and Stephen C. Levinson are two linguists who have written against the existence of linguistic universals, making a particular mention towards issues with Chomsky's proposal for a Universal Grammar. They argue that across the 6,000-8,000 languages spoken around the world today, there are merely strong tendencies rather than universals at best. In their view, these arise primarily due to the fact that many languages are connected to one another through shared historical backgrounds or common lineage, such as group Romance languages in Europe that were all derived from ancient Latin, and therefore it can be expected that they share some core similarities. Evans and Levinson believe that linguists who have previously proposed or supported concepts associated with linguistic universals have done so "under the assumption that most languages are English-like in their structure" and only after analyzing a limited range of languages. They identify ethnocentrism, the idea "that most cognitive scientists, linguists included, speak only familiar European languages, all close cousins in structure," as a possible influence towards the various issues they identify in the assertions made on linguistic universals. With regards to Chomsky's universal grammar, these linguists claim that the explanation of the structure and rules applied to UG are either false due to a lack of detail into the various constructions used when creating or interpreting a grammatical sentence, or that the theory is unfalsifiable due to the vague and oversimplified assertions made by Chomsky. Instead, Evans and Levinson highlight the vast diversity that exists amongst the many languages spoken around the world to advocate for further investigation into the many cross-linguistic variations that do exist. Their article promotes linguistic diversity by citing multiple examples of variation in how "languages can be structured at every level: phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic." They claim that increased understanding and acceptance of linguistic diversity over the concepts of false claims of linguistic universals, better stated to them as strong tendencies, will lead to more enlightening discoveries in the studies of human cognition.

title: Linguistic universal


text:
Omnia

Omnia may refer to:

 * Omnia (band), a pagan folk band from the Netherlands
 * Omnia (DJ), Ukrainian trance/progressive house DJ and producer
 * Samsung Omnia, a group of smartphones by Samsung
 * Omnia Township, Cowley County, Kansas
 * Omnia, a fictional nation in the Discworld universe

title: Omnia


text:
Stone's theorem on one-parameter unitary groups

In mathematics, Stone's theorem on one-parameter unitary groups is a basic theorem of functional analysis that establishes a one-to-one correspondence between self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space $$\mathcal{H}$$ and one-parameter families

 * $$(U_{t})_{t \in \R}$$

of unitary operators that are strongly continuous, i.e.,

 * $$\forall t_0 \in \R, \psi \in \mathcal{H}: \qquad \lim_{t \to t_0} U_t(\psi) = U_{t_0}(\psi),$$

and are homomorphisms, i.e.,

 * $$\forall s,t \in \R : \qquad U_{t + s} = U_t U_s.$$

Such one-parameter families are ordinarily referred to as strongly continuous one-parameter unitary groups.

The theorem was proved by, and showed that the requirement that $$(U_t)_{t \in \R}$$ be strongly continuous can be relaxed to say that it is merely  weakly measurable, at least when the Hilbert space is  separable.

This is an impressive result, as it allows one to define the derivative of the mapping $$t \mapsto U_t,$$ which is only supposed to be  continuous. It is also related to the theory of Lie groups and Lie algebras.

Formal statement
The statement of the theorem is as follows.

 * Theorem. Let $$(U_t)_{t \in \R}$$ be a strongly continuous one-parameter unitary group. Then there exists a unique (possibly unbounded) operator $$A: \mathcal{D}_A \to \mathcal{H}$$, that is self-adjoint on $$\mathcal{D}_A$$ and such that
 * $$\forall t \in \R : \qquad U_t = e^{itA}.$$
 * The domain of $$A$$ is defined by
 * $$\mathcal{D}_A = \left \{ \psi \in \mathcal{H} \left | \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{-i}{\varepsilon} \left(U_{\varepsilon} (\psi) - \psi \right) \text{ exists} \right. \right \}.$$
 * Conversely, let $$A: \mathcal{D}_A \to \mathcal{H}$$ be a (possibly unbounded) self-adjoint operator on $$\mathcal{D}_A \subseteq \mathcal{H}.$$ Then the one-parameter family $$(U_{t})_{t \in \R}$$ of unitary operators defined by
 * $$\forall t \in \R : \qquad U_{t} := e^{itA}$$
 * is a strongly continuous one-parameter group.

In both parts of the theorem, the expression $$e^{itA}$$ is defined by means of the functional calculus, which uses the spectral theorem for unbounded self-adjoint operators.

The operator $$A$$ is called the infinitesimal generator of $$(U_{t})_{t \in \R}.$$ Furthermore, $$A$$ will be a bounded operator if and only if the operator-valued mapping $$t \mapsto U_{t}$$ is norm-continuous.

The infinitesimal generator $$A$$ of a strongly continuous unitary group $$(U_{t})_{t \in \R}$$ may be computed as

 * $$A\psi = -i\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{U_\varepsilon\psi-\psi}{\varepsilon},$$

with the domain of $$A$$ consisting of those vectors $$\psi$$ for which the limit exists in the norm topology. That is to say, $$A$$ is equal to $$-i$$ times the derivative of $$U_t$$ with respect to $$t$$ at $$t=0$$. Part of the statement of the theorem is that this derivative exists—i.e., that $$A$$ is a densely defined self-adjoint operator. The result is not obvious even in the finite-dimensional case, since $$U_t$$ is only assumed (ahead of time) to be continuous, and not differentiable.

Example
The family of translation operators

 * $$\left[ T_t(\psi) \right](x) = \psi(x + t)$$

is a one-parameter unitary group of unitary operators; the infinitesimal generator of this family is an extension of the differential operator

 * $$-i \frac{d}{dx}$$

defined on the space of continuously differentiable complex-valued functions with compact support on $$\R.$$ Thus

 * $$T_{t} = e^{t \frac{d}{dx}}.$$

In other words, motion on the line is generated by the momentum operator.

Applications
Stone's theorem has numerous applications in quantum mechanics. For instance, given an isolated quantum mechanical system, with Hilbert space of states $H$, time evolution is a strongly continuous one-parameter unitary group on $$\mathcal{H}$$. The infinitesimal generator of this group is the system Hamiltonian.

Using Fourier transform
Stone's Theorem can be recast using the language of the Fourier transform. The real line $$\R$$ is a locally compact abelian group. Non-degenerate *-representations of the group C*-algebra $$C^*(\R)$$ are in one-to-one correspondence with strongly continuous unitary representations of $$\R,$$ i.e., strongly continuous one-parameter unitary groups. On the other hand, the Fourier transform is a *-isomorphism from $$C^*(\R)$$ to $$C_0(\R),$$ the $$C^*$$-algebra of continuous complex-valued functions on the real line that vanish at infinity. Hence, there is a one-to-one correspondence between strongly continuous one-parameter unitary groups and *-representations of $$C_0(\R).$$ As every *-representation of $$C_0(\R)$$ corresponds uniquely to a self-adjoint operator, Stone's Theorem holds.

Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous one-parameter unitary group is as follows:

 * Let $$(U_{t})_{t \in \R}$$ be a strongly continuous unitary representation of $$\R$$ on a Hilbert space $$\mathcal{H}$$.
 * Integrate this unitary representation to yield a non-degenerate *-representation $$\rho$$ of $$C^*(\R)$$ on $$\mathcal{H}$$ by first defining $$\forall f \in C_c(\R): \quad \rho(f) := \int_{\R} f(t) ~ U_{t} dt,$$ and then extending $$\rho$$ to all of $$C^*(\R)$$ by continuity.
 * Use the Fourier transform to obtain a non-degenerate *-representation $$\tau$$ of $$C_0(\R )$$ on $$\mathcal{H}$$.
 * By the Riesz-Markov Theorem, $$\tau$$ gives rise to a projection-valued measure on $$\R$$ that is the resolution of the identity of a unique self-adjoint operator $$A$$, which may be unbounded.
 * Then $$A$$ is the infinitesimal generator of $$(U_{t})_{t \in \R }.$$

The precise definition of $$C^*(\R)$$ is as follows. Consider the *-algebra $$C_c(\R),$$ the continuous complex-valued functions on $$\R$$ with compact support, where the multiplication is given by convolution. The completion of this *-algebra with respect to the $$L^1$$-norm is a Banach *-algebra, denoted by $$(L^1(\R),\star).$$ Then $$C^*(\R)$$ is defined to be the enveloping $$C^*$$-algebra of $$(L^1(\R),\star)$$, i.e., its completion with respect to the largest possible $$C^*$$-norm. It is a non-trivial fact that, via the Fourier transform, $$C^*(\R)$$ is isomorphic to $$C_0(\R).$$ A result in this direction is the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma, which says that the Fourier transform maps $$L^1(\R)$$ to $$C_0(\R).$$

Generalizations
The Stone–von Neumann theorem generalizes Stone's theorem to a pair of self-adjoint operators, $$(P,Q)$$, satisfying the canonical commutation relation, and shows that these are all unitarily equivalent to the position operator and momentum operator on $$L^2(\R).$$

The Hille–Yosida theorem generalizes Stone's theorem to strongly continuous one-parameter semigroups of contractions on Banach spaces.


text:
Talk:Job Training Partnership Act

On 3 August 2004, this page was nominated for deletion. As a result of the debate, it was redirected. See Votes for deletion/Job Training Partnership Act for a record of the debate. Rossami 23:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Job Training Partnership Act


text:
Yvonne Mitchell

Yvonne Mitchell (born Yvonne Frances Joseph; 7 July 1915 – 24 March 1979) was an English actress and author. After beginning her acting career in theatre, Mitchell progressed to films in the late 1940s. Her roles include Julia in the 1954 BBC adaptation of George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. She retired from acting in 1977.

Early life
Mitchell was born Yvonne Frances Joseph, but in 1946 changed her name by deed poll to Yvonne Mitchell (without the Frances). Her parents were Madge (Mitchell) and Bertie Joseph. Her cousin was Conservative MP Keith Joseph. She was Jewish and was educated in Sussex at Battle Abbey School and St Paul's Girls' School in London.

Acting
Mitchell trained for an acting career at the London Theatre Studio, making her professional debut in 1939. Already an experienced stage actress, she made her speaking film debut in The Queen of Spades (1949), although she played an uncredited minor role in Love on the Dole eight years earlier.

She had several prominent film roles over the next three decades, winning a British Film Award for The Divided Heart (1954) and the Silver Bear for Best Actress at the 7th Berlin International Film Festival for Woman in a Dressing Gown (1957). She appeared as Mildred in the controversial film Sapphire (1959).

Mitchell was voted 'Television Actress of the Year' for 1953 by the Daily Mail newspaper, mainly for her role as Cathy in the Nigel Kneale/Rudolph Cartier adaptation of Emily Brontë's novel Wuthering Heights. The next year, she appeared in another Kneale/Cartier literary adaptation in the role of Julia, with Peter Cushing as Winston Smith, in their adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

She starred as Lea in the 1973 BBC TV production of Colette's Cheri. She continued to appear in television guest roles until the late 1970s, in series such as Out of the Unknown (in 1966); her final screen role was in the BBC science-fiction series 1990 (1977).

Writing
Outside acting, Mitchell was also an established author, writing several books for children and adults as well as winning awards for playwriting. Her plays include The Same Sky. She wrote an acclaimed biography of the French writer Colette, and her own autobiography was published in 1957.

Personal life
Mitchell was married to the journalist, film and theatre critic and novelist Derek Monsey (1921–1979) and they lived in a village in the south of France.

Mitchell died of cancer, aged 63, in 1979. Monsey died the same year, roughly one month earlier. Their daughter Cordelia Monsey is a theatre director and a long-term associate of both Sir Peter Hall and Sir Trevor Nunn. Yvonne Mitchell's grandson is the drummer and violinist, Mitch McGugan.

title: Yvonne Mitchell


text:
Four square

Four square (also called downball, handball, champ, four squares or box ball) is a global sport played on a square court divided by two perpendicular lines into four identical boxes creating four squares labelled 1–4 or A–D.

Four square is a popular game at elementary schools with little required equipment, almost no setup, and short rounds of play that can be ended at any time. The game also has a large following for adults in many communities.

History
Four square dates to at least the 1950s. A game called four square is mentioned in newspapers in the northeastern United States at least as far back as the 1950s, but the rules are not explained. A 1953 teacher's manual describes four square with the same rules used today. However, it is possible this game could have evolved from "Jeu de paume", a game popular in France as early as the twelfth century.

Rules
Four square is played on any hard-surfaced court, such as wood, concrete or asphalt. There is no official court size, but typically courts measure between 10 and 30 ft on a side, and divided into four smaller squares labelled 1–4 of equal size.

Rules vary, but there are two common objectives. The first is to have the most points when the game ends, where 1 point is awarded to the person in square 4 (the server) each turn. The second is to be the last player who hasn't been eliminated by obtaining a predetermined number of "outs".

One player occupies each of the 4 squares at a time; the other players wait in line. The player in square 4 serves the ball into another square. Once the ball bounces into a square, the player who occupies that square must hit the ball into another square with their hands, and so on, until someone gets out. Each time a player gets out, that player leaves the court and enters the back of the line and all remaining players advance to the higher numbered square (if applicable). Square 1 is then filled with a new player from the line of awaiting players.

A player may get out as follows:
 * Failing to hit the ball into another square
 * Allowing the ball to bounce more than once in their own square
 * Hitting the ball out of the squares or hitting a line
 * Hitting the ball incorrectly such as by holding, catching, or carrying, unless allowed (known as a "sticky")
 * Hitting the ball out of turn or committing interference
 * Hitting the ball one handed (in some versions of gameplay)

Variations
Four square has inspired other similar games. One example is nine square, which uses a 3-by-3 grid instead of a 2-by-2 grid. The 9 square is the middle and the ball is served from this position. Another version is played similar to the original in that four players occupy their respective spots, but they must keep the ball off the ground like in volleyball.

The game is called King Out in Sweden. A similar schoolyard game is called handball.

World records
On August 4–5, 2012, a group of 17 Needham High School students and alumni — assisted by 50 other Needham residents at various times — broke the previous world record by playing for 34 hours, the previous record being held by 15 Manchester College students who played the game for 30 hours. The world record was held by eight Argentinean players for 29 hours in 2008, as recognized by Guinness World Records. The Argentinean record was preceded by a group of teens from Youngstown, Ohio, who also played for 29 hours.

Common terms
Many terms are used for specific techniques that can be allowed or banned by the primary square:
 * A "sticky" refers to holding the ball. Specified time (in seconds) is decided by the primary square.
 * "Popcorns" are taking the ball and throwing it in the air before hitting it. The amount of popcorns before returning the ball is also decided by the primary square.
 * A "school bus" is when a player calls out said phrase. All player in the four squares must run to the center of the four squares and put their foot at the intersection. The last to do so has lost the round.

title: Four square


text: Talk:Joe Arpaio

title: Talk:Joe Arpaio


text:
Talk:Ghoughphtheightteeau

On 3 Aug 2004, this page was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/Ghoughphtheightteeau for a record of the debate. Rossami 23:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ghoughphtheightteeau


text: Category:Ethernet

title: Category:Ethernet