text:
Eccentricity (mathematics)

In mathematics, the eccentricity of a conic section is a non-negative real number that uniquely characterizes its shape.

One can think of the eccentricity as a measure of how much a conic section deviates from being circular. In particular:

 * The eccentricity of a circle is 0.
 * The eccentricity of an ellipse which is not a circle is between 0 and 1.
 * The eccentricity of a parabola is 1.
 * The eccentricity of a hyperbola is greater than 1.
 * The eccentricity of a pair of lines is $$\infty$$

Two conic sections with the same eccentricity are similar.

Definitions
Any conic section can be defined as the locus of points whose distances to a point (the focus) and a line (the directrix) are in a constant ratio. That ratio is called the eccentricity, commonly denoted as $e$.

The eccentricity can also be defined in terms of the intersection of a plane and a double-napped cone associated with the conic section. If the cone is oriented with its axis vertical, the eccentricity is

 * $$ e = \frac{\sin \beta}{\sin \alpha}, \ \ 0<\alpha<90^\circ, \ 0\le\beta\le90^\circ \, $$

where β is the angle between the plane and the horizontal and  α is the angle between the cone's slant generator and the horizontal. For $$\beta=0$$ the plane section is a circle, for $$\beta=\alpha$$ a parabola. (The plane must not meet the vertex of the cone.)

The half-focal separation of an ellipse or hyperbola, denoted $c$ (or sometimes $f$ or $e$), is the distance between its center and either of its two foci. The eccentricity can be defined as the ratio of the half-focal separation to the semimajor axis $a$: that is, $$ e = \frac{c}{a} $$ (lacking a center, the half-focal separation for parabolas is not defined). It is worth to note that a parabola can be treated as an ellipse or a hyperbola, but with one focal point at infinity.

Alternative names
In the case of ellipses and hyperbolas the half-focal separation is sometimes called the linear eccentricity.

Notation
Three notational conventions are in common use:
 * 1) $e$ for the eccentricity and $c$ for the half-focal separation.

Values
Here, for the ellipse and the hyperbola, $e$ is the length of the semi-major axis and $c$ is the length of the semi-minor axis.

When the conic section is given in the general quadratic form

 * $$Ax^2 + Bxy + Cy^2 +Dx + Ey + F = 0,$$

the following formula gives the eccentricity $a$ if the conic section is not a parabola (which has eccentricity equal to 1), not a degenerate hyperbola or degenerate ellipse, and not an imaginary ellipse:

 * $$e=\sqrt{\frac{2\sqrt{(A-C)^2 + B^2}}{\eta (A+C) + \sqrt{(A-C)^2 + B^2}}}$$

where $$\eta = 1$$ if the determinant of the 3×3 matrix

 * $$\begin{bmatrix}A & B/2 & D/2\\B/2 & C & E/2\\D/2&E/2&F\end{bmatrix}$$

is negative or $$\eta = -1$$ if that determinant is positive.

Ellipses
The eccentricity of an ellipse is strictly less than 1. When circles (which have eccentricity 0) are counted as ellipses, the eccentricity of an ellipse is greater than or equal to 0; if circles are given a special category and are excluded from the category of ellipses, then the eccentricity of an ellipse is strictly greater than 0.

For any ellipse, let $b$ be the length of its semi-major axis and $e$ be the length of its semi-minor axis. In the coordinate system with origin at the ellipse's center and $a$-axis aligned with the major axis, points on the ellipse satisfy the equation

 * $$\frac{x^2}{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1,$$

with foci at coordinates $$(\pm c, 0)$$ for $c = \sqrt{a^2 - b^2}.$

We define a number of related additional concepts (only for ellipses):

Other formulae for the eccentricity of an ellipse
The eccentricity of an ellipse is, most simply, the ratio of the linear eccentricity $e$ (distance between the center of the ellipse and each focus) to the length of the semimajor axis $a$.

 * $$e = \frac{c}{a}.$$

The eccentricity is also the ratio of the semimajor axis $b$ to the distance $x$ from the center to the directrix:

 * $$e = \frac{a}{d}.$$

The eccentricity can be expressed in terms of the flattening $a$ (defined as $$f = 1 - b / a$$ for semimajor axis $b$ and semiminor axis $e$):
 * $$e = \sqrt{1-(1-f)^2} = \sqrt{f(2-f)}.$$

(Flattening may be denoted by $c$ in some subject areas if $a$ is linear eccentricity.)

Define the maximum and minimum radii $$r_\text{max}$$ and $$r_\text{min}$$ as the maximum and minimum distances from either focus to the ellipse (that is, the distances from either focus to the two ends of the major axis). Then with semimajor axis $a$, the eccentricity is given by

 * $$e = \frac{r_\text{max}-r_\text{min}}{r_\text{max}+r_\text{min}} = \frac{r_\text{max}-r_\text{min}}{2a},$$

which is the distance between the foci divided by the length of the major axis.

Hyperbolas
The eccentricity of a hyperbola can be any real number greater than 1, with no upper bound. The eccentricity of a rectangular hyperbola is $$\sqrt{2}$$.

Quadrics
The eccentricity of a three-dimensional quadric is the eccentricity of a designated section of it. For example, on a triaxial ellipsoid, the meridional eccentricity is that of the ellipse formed by a section containing both the longest and the shortest axes (one of which will be the polar axis), and the equatorial eccentricity is the eccentricity of the ellipse formed by a section through the centre, perpendicular to the polar axis (i.e. in the equatorial plane). But: conic sections may occur on surfaces of higher order, too (see image).

Celestial mechanics
In celestial mechanics, for bound orbits in a spherical potential, the definition above is informally generalized. When the apocenter distance is close to the pericenter distance, the orbit is said to have low eccentricity; when they are very different, the orbit is said be eccentric or having eccentricity near unity. This definition coincides with the mathematical definition of eccentricity for ellipses, in Keplerian, i.e., $$1/r$$ potentials.

Analogous classifications
A number of classifications in mathematics use derived terminology from the classification of conic sections by eccentricity:
 * Classification of elements of SL2(R) as elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic – and similarly for classification of elements of PSL2(R), the real Möbius transformations.
 * Classification of discrete distributions by variance-to-mean ratio; see cumulants of some discrete probability distributions for details.
 * Classification of partial differential equations is by analogy with the conic sections classification; see elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic partial differential equations.

title: Eccentricity (mathematics)


text:
User:Pkoistin

Petri Koistinen

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

title: User:Pkoistin


text:
Eccentricity (behavior)

Eccentricity (also called quirkiness) is an unusual or odd behavior on the part of an individual. This behavior would typically be perceived as unusual or unnecessary, without being demonstrably maladaptive. Eccentricity is contrasted with normal behavior, the nearly universal means by which individuals in society solve given problems and pursue certain priorities in everyday life. People who consistently display benignly eccentric behavior are labeled as "eccentrics".

Etymology
From Medieval Latin eccentricus, derived from Greek ', "out of the center", from '-, '- "out of" + ', "center". Eccentric first appeared in English essays as a neologism in 1551 as an astronomical term meaning "a circle in which the earth, sun, etc. deviates from its center." Five years later, in 1556, an adjective form of the word was used. In 1685, the definition evolved from the literal to the figurative, and eccentric is noted to have begun being used to describe unconventional or odd behavior. A noun form of the word – a person who possesses and exhibits these unconventional or odd qualities and behaviors – appeared by 1832.

Depictions
Eccentricity is often associated with genius, intellectual giftedness, or creativity. People may perceive the individual's eccentric behavior as the outward expression of their unique intelligence or creative impulse. In this vein, the eccentric's habits are incomprehensible not because they are illogical or the result of madness, but because they stem from a mind so original that it cannot be conformed to societal norms. English utilitarian thinker John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) wrote that "the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained", and mourned a lack of eccentricity as "the chief danger of the time". Edith Sitwell (1887–1964) wrote that eccentricity is "often a kind of innocent pride", also saying that geniuses and aristocrats are called eccentrics because "they are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd". Eccentricity is also associated with great wealth — what would be considered signs of insanity in a poor person, some may accept as eccentricity in wealthy people.

Comparison to considerations of normality
A person who is simply in a "fish out of water" situation is not, by the strictest definition, an eccentric since (presumably) they may be ordinary by the conventions of their native environment.

Eccentrics may or may not comprehend the standards for normal behavior in their culture. They are simply unconcerned by society's disapproval of their habits or beliefs.

Some eccentrics are pejoratively considered "cranks" rather than geniuses. Eccentric behavior is often considered whimsical or quirky, although it can also be strange and disturbing. Many individuals previously considered merely eccentric, such as aviation magnate Howard Hughes, have recently been retrospectively diagnosed as having had mental disorders (obsessive–compulsive disorder in Hughes' case).

Other people may have an eccentric taste in clothes, or eccentric hobbies or collections they pursue with great vigor. They may have a pedantic and precise manner of speaking, intermingled with inventive wordplay. Many of these behaviors share the characteristics of someone with an autistic spectrum disorder, such as the eccentric hobbies or the pedantic speech.

Many individuals may even manifest eccentricities consciously and deliberately in an attempt to differentiate themselves from societal norms or enhance a sense of inimitable identity. Given the overwhelmingly positive stereotypes (at least in popular culture and especially with fictional characters) often associated with eccentricity, as detailed above, certain individuals seek to be associated with this sort of character type. However, this is not always successful as eccentric individuals are not necessarily charismatic and the individual in question may simply be dismissed by others as just seeking attention.

Characteristics
Psychologist David Weeks believes people with a mental illness suffer from their behavior, while eccentrics are quite happy. He even opines that eccentrics are less prone to mental illness than everyone else.

According to Weeks' study, there are several distinctive characteristics that often differentiate a healthy eccentric person from a regular person or someone who has a mental illness. The first five characteristics on Weeks' list are found in most people regarded as eccentric:

 * Nonconforming
 * Creative
 * Strongly motivated by curiosity
 * Idealistic
 * Happily obsessed with one or more hobbies (usually five or six)

Weeks also lists characteristics that some, but not all, eccentric people may exhibit:
 * Aware from early childhood that they are different
 * Intelligent
 * Opinionated and outspoken
 * Noncompetitive, not in need of reassurance or reinforcement from society
 * Unusual in their eating habits and living arrangements
 * Not interested in the opinions or company of other people
 * Mischievous sense of humor
 * Single
 * Usually the eldest or an only child
 * Bad speller

title: Eccentricity (behavior)


text:
User:Scruss

Stewart C. Russell is a bloke living in Toronto. He is from Scotland. He is rather too keen on Scots Tablet.

He is a very sporadic contributor.

External Link(s)

 * scruss.com
 * keybase.io/scruss

title: User:Scruss


text:
Netscape Portable Runtime

The Netscape Portable Runtime, or NSPR, is a cross-platform abstraction layer library for the C programming language. It provides a uniform API for various operating system functions.

History
NSPR was originally designed to provide a base for the Java virtual machine in Netscape 5. Over time it was extended to allow support for additional functionality used for Netscape's server and client software. NSPR continues to be used today by Firefox as well as many of Oracle and Red Hat's server products.

Threads
NSPR provides a thread API. It uses the OS's threading capabilities where possible. It also provides support for sharing memory between threads, as well as creating and using thread pools. Locks, atomics, semaphores, and both cached and uncached monitors are provided.

I/O
NSPR provides functions for working with files, directories, anonymous pipes and network sockets.

Network addresses
NSPR defines an IP-centric network address object. Functions are provided to translate ASCII strings (DNS names) into NSPR's network address structures, regardless of whether the addressing technology uses IPv4 or IPv6.

Time
NSPR makes timing facilities available in two forms: interval timing and calendar functions.

Interval timers are based on a free running 32-bit resolution timer. Their epoch and interval can be set as needed.

Calendar times are represented using 64-bit signed Unix time. NSPR provides functions for manipulating and converting timestamps.

Memory management
NSPR provides API to perform the basic malloc, calloc, realloc and free functions. Depending on the platform, the functions may be implemented almost entirely in the NSPR runtime or simply shims that call immediately into the host operating system's offerings.

Linking
Support for linking (shared library loading and unloading) forms part of NSPR's feature set. In most cases this is simply a smoothing over of the facilities offered by the various platform providers.

Data structures
NSPR provides implementations of a circular linked list and a hash table.

title: Netscape Portable Runtime


text:
Grievous bodily harm

Assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (often abbreviated to GBH) is a term used in English criminal law to describe the severest forms of battery. It refers to two offences that are created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18; the offence under section 18 is variously referred to as "wounding with intent" or "causing grievous bodily harm with intent", whereas the offence under section 20 is variously referred to as "unlawful wounding", "malicious wounding" or "inflicting grievous bodily harm".

Section 18
This section now reads:

"Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, ... with intent, ... to do some ... grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude for life ..."

The words omitted in the first to third places specifically included shooting or attempting to shoot, and included some words considered redundant; they were repealed by section 10(2) of, and Part III of Schedule 3 to, the Criminal Law Act 1967.

The words omitted in the penultimate place ("at the discretion of the court") were repealed by the Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act 1893.

The words omitted at the end were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1892 (words limiting penal servitude to at least three years, or imprisonment to at most two years, and removing mention of hard labour) and the Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act 1893 (words prescribing imprisonment as an alternative to penal servitude).

This section replaces section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1837, which in turn replaced section 12 of the Offences against the Person Act 1828, which in turn replaced section 1 of Lord Ellenborough's Act (1803).

Section 20
In England and Wales, section 20 now reads:

"Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude ..."

The words omitted were repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1892, as for section 18.

In Northern Ireland, it reads:

"Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years."

This was subject to the same omissions as in England; the Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 enacted the other amendments.

Felony
The distinction between felony and misdemeanor was abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967. Accordingly, "guilty of felony" is to be read as "guilty of an offence". The Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 provided the same for Northern Ireland, until the 1861 Act was amended in 2004 to update the formulation.

Penal servitude
Penal servitude was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 and the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. Accordingly, the phrase "penal servitude" is to be read as "imprisonment".

The offences
None of the words used in these sections are defined elsewhere in the Act, but they have been defined by case law.

Wound
For this purpose, a wound is an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin. There must be a division of the whole skin and not merely a division of the cuticle or upper layer.

A single drop of blood is sufficient, but it must fall outside the body: see JJC (a minor) v. Eisenhower (1984) 78 Cr App R 48. In this case, a pellet gun was fired at the victim. The bullet ruptured blood vessels above his eye, causing his eye to fill with fluid. Lord Justice Robert Goff said the rupturing of blood vessels is an internal wound; only the breaking of whole skin would warrant a wounding charge.

A bruise or internal rupturing of blood vessels is not a wound, and neither is a broken bone.

Wounding does not imply the use of a weapon; a kick may be wounding.

Grievous bodily harm means "really serious bodily harm": DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290, HL; R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566, HL; R v Brown (A) [1994] 1 AC 212, HL; R v Brown and Stratton [1998] Crim LR 485, CA. It encompasses a range of injuries: R v Woodland (2007) 48 MVR 360.

However, R v Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230, [1985] LS Gaz R 1005, allows "serious injury" as a sufficient direction to the jury. It is for the judge to decide whether the word "really" needs to be used in their direction to the jury: R v Janjua and Choudhury [1999] 1 Cr App R 91, The Times, 8 May 1998, CA (in this case, as a knife with a blade at least $5 1/2$ inches long had been used, it was not possible that something less than really serious harm was intended).

Inflict and cause
In R v Martin, shortly before the conclusion of a performance at a theatre, the defendant put out the lights on a staircase which a large number of persons had to descend in order to leave the theatre, and he also obstructed the exit by placing an iron bar across a doorway which they had in leaving to pass, and upon the lights being thus extinguished, a large proportion of the audience were seized by panic and rushed in fright down the staircase forcing those in front against the iron bar; he "inflicted" injuries which resulted by reason of the pressure and struggling of the crowd thus created on the staircase.

David Ormerod said that the effect of the decision in R v Gibbins and Proctor appears to be that the offence of causing grievous bodily harm under section 18 can be committed by an omission.

In R v Mandair, Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC said, with the agreement of the majority of the House of Lords, "In my opinion ... the word 'cause' is wider or at least not narrower than the word 'inflict.

In R v Burstow, R v Ireland, it was held that an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 can be committed where no physical violence is applied directly or indirectly to the body of the victim.

Lord Hope of Craighead said "the word 'inflict' implies that the consequence of the act is something which the victim is likely to find unpleasant or harmful." He said that, in the context of a criminal act, the words "cause" and "inflict" may be taken to be interchangeable.

Lord Steyn described the actions of Burstow as follows: "During an eight-month period in 1995 covered by the indictment he continued his campaign of harassment. He made some silent telephone calls to her. He also made abusive calls to her. He distributed offensive cards in the street where she lived. He was frequently, and unnecessarily, at her home and place of work. He surreptitiously took photographs of the victim and her family. He sent her a note which was intended to be menacing, and was so understood."

Neither offence requires that a common assault be committed.

1983 to 1997
In R v Wilson, R v Jenkins, Lord Roskill said: "In our opinion, grievous bodily harm may be inflicted ... either where the accused has directly and violently "inflicted" it by assaulting the victim, or where the accused has "inflicted" it by doing something, intentionally, which, although it is not itself a direct application of force to the body of the victim, does directly result in force being applied violently to the body of the victim, so that he suffers grievous bodily harm."

Before 1983
In R v Clarence, it appeared that at a time when the prisoner knew, but his wife did not know, that he was suffering from gonorrhoea, he had "connection" with her; that the result was that the disease was communicated to her, and that had she been aware of the prisoner's condition she would not have submitted to the intercourse.

Clarence's conviction under section 20 was quashed by the Court for Crown Cases Reserved by a majority of 9 to 4. Wills, A. L. Smith, and Stephen JJ specifically said that they thought the disease had not been inflicted within the meaning of the word "inflict" in section 20. Mathew J said that he agreed with Stephen. Stephen said that he had been informed that Grantham J agreed with him. Huddleston B said that he thoroughly agreed with Stephen. Lord Coleridge CJ said that he agreed with all or almost all of what Wills and Stephen said. Hawkins J specifically said that he thought it had been inflicted within the meaning of the word "inflict" in section 20.

Wills J said (footnotes have been included in the body of the text, indicated by "(1)"):

"But I think the section clearly points to the infliction of direct and intentional violence, whether with a weapon, or the fist, or the foot, or any other part of the person or in any other way not involving the use of the weapon, as for instance by creating a panic at a theatre whereby people trampled on one another: Reg. v. Martin. (1) 8 Q. B. D. 54 The prisoner in that case did what was certain to make people crush one another, perhaps to death, and the grievous bodily harm was as truly inficted by him as if he had hurled a stone at someone's head. Take also the illustration of my brother Stephen, of a man who digs a pit for another to fall into, whereby that other is injured. I do not think that this section was ever intended to apply to the administration of poison, and most of the arguments I have used to shew that sexual offences were not intended to be dealt with in s. 47 apply with equal force to s. 20. The Court for the consideration of Crown Cases Reserved in Reg. v. Taylor (1) Law Rep. 1 C. c. R. 194. decided that in the offence of "unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm", an assault is necessarily included. So far as the decision is concerned, the same question may be said to arise under s. 20 as under s. 47. But I think the argument is even stronger here, for the context seems to me to shew that direct personal violence of some kind was intended, so that even if the constructive assault contended for by those who support a conviction under s. 47 were established, a conviction under this section would still be wrong."

Stephen J said:

"But is there an "infliction of bodily harm either with or without any weapon or instrument"? I think not for the following reasons.

The words appear to me to mean the direct causing of some grievous injury to the body itself with a weapon, as by a cut with a knife, or without a weapon, as by a blow with the fist, or by pushing a person down. Indeed, though the word "assault" is not used in the section, I think the words imply an assault and battery of which a wound or grievous bodily harm is the manifest immediate and obvious result."

A. L. Smith J said "it appears to me that this offence cannot be committed unless an assault has in fact been committed, and indeed this has been so held".

Hawkins J said that he thought that the contention that bodily harm cannot be legally said to be "inflicted" unless it has been brought about by some act amounting to an assault was untenable.

Maliciously
In R v Mowatt Lord Diplock said:

"In the offence under section 20 ... the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person ... It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result."

Therefore, the defendant must at least be reckless as to whether some harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm, is likely to be caused (see R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter ), but a mere intention to frighten is not enough (see R v Sullivan).

In R v Sullivan [1981] Crim LR 46, CA, the appellant was tried on charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and inflicting grievous bodily harm. The victim said that the appellant and a companion were drunk. He said that while he was in a street that was eight feet wide and had a narrow pavement, the appellant drove a car through that street at twenty-five to thirty miles an hour, mounted the pavement and injured him. The appellant denied that he was the driver of the car in a written statement to the police and said he could add nothing to that statement in an unsworn statement from the dock. However, during his closing speech, counsel for the defence suggested that all the appellant intended to do was frighten the victim and no more. The jury were directed that if there was an intention to frighten, and injury took place as a result, the appellant was guilty of an offence under section 20. The appellant was acquitted of the offence under section 18, but convicted of offences under section 20. The Court of Appeal held that an intention to frighten was not enough to constitute the necessary mens rea for section 20, and that the direction to the contrary effect was a misdirection. However, they dismissed the appellant's appeal. They said that a properly directed jury could not in the circumstances have come to any other conclusion than that the appellant must have been aware that what he was doing was likely to cause physical injury to the victim.

In practice, malice in the case of these offences means no more than foresight of the risk of bodily harm: R v Barnes [2005] 1 Cr App R 30.

Specific intent
Section 18 has two separate mens rea requirements and is therefore an offence of specific rather than basic intent. R v Belfon [1976] 1 WLR 741, CA, confirmed that references to mere foresight or recklessness that harm was likely to result are sufficient for the element "unlawfully and maliciously inflict/cause" for the basic intent in both sections 18 and 20 but insufficient for the specific element. The intention either to cause or to resist arrest must be proved subjectively, say, in the charge "malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm".

The Crown Prosecution Service said that the following factors may indicate the specific intent: "a repeated or planned attack; deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to cause injury, such as breaking a glass before an attack; making prior threats; and using an offensive weapon against, or kicking the victim's head".

Alternative verdicts
Sections 20 and 47 are offences of basic intent and can be an alternative charge to section 18, and/or section 47 is a lesser included offence.

Consent
Consent is only an allowed defence to either section if there is considered to be a good reason. This may include medical operations, sport, body modifications (even if carried out by someone who is not trained), and, occasionally, "horseplay".

R v Brown (Anthony) however ruled that sadomasochistic sexual acts are not a good reason to allow a defence of consent.

Mode of trial
In England and Wales, the offence under section 18 is an indictable-only offence, while the offence under section 20 is triable either way.

Section 18
In England and Wales, an offence under section 18 is punishable with imprisonment for life or for any shorter term.

See the Crown Prosecution Service Sentencing Manual for case law on sentencing of section 18. Relevant cases are:

 * AG's Ref No 14 of 2008 (Cook) [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 62
 * AG's Ref No 44 of 2008 (Patterson) [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 111
 * AG's Ref No 49 of 2008 (Blake) [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 109
 * Stanley [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 107
 * AG's Ref 6 of 2009 (DR) [2009] 2 Cr App R (S) 108
 * AG's Ref 14 of 2009 (Morgan) [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 17
 * AG's Ref (No 95 of 2009) (Blight) [2010] EWCA Crim 353
 * Cross [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 34
 * Smith [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 37
 * Bowley [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 79
 * R v Chatburn [2010] EWCA Crim 115
 * Haystead [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 107

In Northern Ireland, an offence under section 18 is punishable with imprisonment for life or for any shorter term.

Section 20
In England and Wales, a person guilty of an offence under section 20 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.

Where a person is convicted on indictment of an offence under section 20, other than an offence for which the sentence falls to be imposed under section 227 or 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court, if not precluded from sentencing an offender by its exercise of some other power, may impose a fine instead of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way in which the court has power to deal with him, subject however to any enactment requiring the offender to be dealt with in a particular way.

An offence under section 20 is a specified offence for the purposes of chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 because it is a specified violent offence. It is not a serious offence for the purposes of that Chapter because it is not, apart from section 225, punishable in the case of a person aged 18 or over by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for a determinate period of ten years or more. This means that sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which relate to extended sentences) apply where a person is convicted of an offence under section 20, committed after the commencement of section 227 or 228 (as the case may be) and the court considers that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences.

See the Crown Prosecution Service Sentencing Manual for case law on sentencing of section 20

The following cases are relevant to section 20:
 * R v Robertson [1997] EWCA Crim 918 (16 April 1997), 1 Cr App R (S) 21
 * R v Byrne [1997] EWCA Crim 1174 (13 May 1997), 1 Cr App R (S) 105
 * R v McNellis [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 481
 * R v Clare [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 97
 * R v Foote [2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 5
 * Hall [2008] EWCA 1208
 * Olawo [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 113
 * Owen [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 64
 * Shannon [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 95
 * Hurley [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 100
 * R v Burns [2009] EWCA Crim 2150
 * Williamson [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 16
 * Abdile [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 18
 * Kee [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 64

In Northern Ireland, a person guilty of an offence under section 20 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.

Racially or religiously aggravated offence
In England and Wales, section 29(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c 37) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated wounding or infliction of bodily harm. This is an aggravated version of the offence under section 20.

title: Grievous bodily harm


text:
File:Olin College at Night.jpg

The Olin College Academic Center at night

Photo taken by Michael Maloney and released under the conditions of the Wikipedia copyright with his permission.

title: File:Olin College at Night.jpg


text:
Cuba Gooding

Cuba Gooding may refer to:

 * Cuba Gooding Sr. (1944–2017), American singer; father of Cuba Gooding Jr.
 * Cuba Gooding Jr. (born 1968), American actor; son of Cuba Gooding Sr.

title: Cuba Gooding


text:
Talk:Functional derivative

Definition with Dirac delta
> Another definition is in terms of a limit and the Dirac delta function, δ:

> $$\frac{\delta F[\phi(x)]}{\delta \phi(y)}=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{F[\phi(x)+\varepsilon\delta(x-y)]-F[\phi(y)]}{\varepsilon}. $$

But in general, F is a functional which is only defined over continuous/smooth functions. φ(x)+εδ(x-y) does not even count as a function. It's a distribution. Phys 22:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it should be noted that some physicians write the definition as above, but that it isn't a mathematically correct definition. Also, the correct definition (the first one) misses $$f$$ on the left side. I'll do these corrections. --Md2perpe 22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that due to the facts that physicists (although this is mathematically not correct) calculate the gradient in the direction of the delta "function", yielding the physicist's version? If so, this could be pointed out more clearly. Greetings--Alexnullnullsieben (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * physics problems most often find their mathematical statement with respect to a Hilbert space
 * where on its dual space the Riesz representation theorem applies and
 * due to the scalar product's symmetry
 * the delta distribution is very often mistaken as the Dirac delta function

"where the arrow on the right handside, inside the functional F, indicates a function definition"--what arrow on the RHS? Steve Avery (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this too close to Wolfram's description?
From wikipedia: "the functional derivative is a generalization of the usual derivative that arises in the calculus of variations. In a functional derivative, instead of differentiating a function with respect to a variable, one differentiates a functional with respect to a function."

From MathWorld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FunctionalDerivative.html): "The functional derivative is a generalization of the usual derivative that arises in the calculus of variations. In a functional derivative, instead of differentiating a function with respect to a variable, one differentiates a functional with respect to a function."

I don't know how different things need to be in order to avoid looking like someone was just copying their site. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/faq.html#copyright --anon
 * Thanks. I removed that text, just in case. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This text was added by User:Kumkee on 13 feb 2004. It was his first (non-anonymous) edit ever; he's only made some half-dozen non-user-space edits since. linas 23:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Partial Integration?
In the first example in the Examples section, there seems to be a sign error when the "Partial integration of second term" happens. I also think that the text within the math is not good style. Since this is my first time editing a math-related article, I'm not too confident about either of these points. I've changed:

\begin{matrix} \left\langle \delta F[\rho], \phi \right\rangle & = & \frac{d}{d\epsilon} \left. \int f( \mathbf{r}, \rho + \epsilon \phi, \nabla\rho+\epsilon\nabla\phi ) d^3r \right|_{\epsilon=0} \\ & = & \int \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho} \phi + \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho} \cdot \nabla\phi \right) d^3r \\ & = & [\mbox{partial integration of second term}] \\ & = & \int \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho} \phi + \nabla \cdot \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho} \phi \right) d^3r \\ & = & \left\langle \frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho} + \nabla \cdot \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho}, \phi \right\rangle \end{matrix} $$

to

\begin{matrix} \left\langle \delta F[\rho], \phi \right\rangle & = & \frac{d}{d\epsilon} \left. \int f( \mathbf{r}, \rho + \epsilon \phi, \nabla\rho+\epsilon\nabla\phi )\, d^3r \right|_{\epsilon=0} \\ & = & \int \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho} \phi + \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho} \cdot \nabla\phi \right) d^3r \\ & = & \int \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho} \phi + \nabla \cdot \left[ \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho} \phi \right] - \left[ \nabla \cdot \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho} \right] \phi \right) d^3r \\ & = & \int \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho} \phi - \left[ \nabla \cdot \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho} \right] \phi \right) d^3r \\ & = & \left\langle \frac{\partial f}{\partial\rho} - \nabla \cdot \frac{\partial f}{\partial\nabla\rho}\,, \phi \right\rangle \end{matrix} $$,

Eubene 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You're correct; I had made an error. Good change! Md2perpe 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Weizsäcker kinetic energy functional
Hi, when I follow the steps to the Weizsäcker derivative the first, eg. (1/8), term has a negative sign, as it comes from deriving 1/rho. Then, in the last equality, it is positive, and in accordance with all texts I know. Is it there a typo somewhere? Also, is it nabla^2 (eg. the sum of the second derivatives) or nabla.nabla ?

I've read the paper: T Gál, Á Nagy. A method to get an analytical expression for the non-interacting kinetic energy density functional. J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 1280, 167 - 171 (2000).

and I think I got confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.150.6 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed to merge the entry First variation into the Functional derivative entry, since they are the same concept: any standard text on the calculus of variation reports the definition of the first functional derivative, calling it "first variation". Also, the concept of functional derivative has its origins in the systematization of the calculus of variation in framework of functional analysis as done by Vito Volterra, i.e. as a concept in the theory of functionals, linear and non-linear. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't actually disagree with you, but some authors do make a distinction between the two terms. In Gelfand and Formin's "Caluculus of Variations", The functional derivative (if I remember correctly) is essentially the left hand side of the Euler-Lagrange equations for the functional.--129.69.21.117 (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * As a practical matter, I think this should remain a separate topic. There are plenty of practical cases where the calculational machinery of the functional derivative can be applied without need for recourse to the First variation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.116.79 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A different way to look at this
I think all the definitions that use delta functions are based on historical, but generally invalid, methods. In particular, since the delta function is not generally in the space of functions being varied, the limit in question doesn't even make sense.

In reality, two different things are happening. First, we're looking for a first approximation to the functional in question near a given function:

$$\delta F[\phi][\eta] = F[\phi + \eta] - F[\phi] + O(\eta^2)$$

Here, η is any "small" test function.

On the other hand, physicists like to define objects via integral kernels. Hence, we look for a function (or, more generally, a distribution) $$\frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi[x]}$$ such that:

$$\delta F[\phi][\eta] = \int \frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi[x]} \eta(x) dx$$

This gives the right results in all cases that I've ever checked, and is much less confusing. If it were up to me, I would write $$\frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi[x]}$$ as $$\frac{\delta F}{\delta \phi}(x)$$, which I consider much clearer.

Note that, generally, when a second variable is present, it's part of the definition of the functional and should be clearly shown as such, e.g., by making it a subscript on the functional, etc. For example, in the case given in the article, $$\rho(r) = \int \rho(r') \delta(r-r') dr'$$, what we really have is a functional $$F_r$$, where $$F_r [\rho] = \int \rho(r') \delta(r-r') dr' = \rho(r)$$ for a fixed r - this is just the Dirac delta distribution, centered at r.

Then:

$$\delta F_r[\rho][\eta] = F_r [\rho + \eta] - F_r [\rho] + O(\eta^2) = \int \eta(r') \delta(r-r') dr' = \int \eta(r') \frac{\delta F_r}{\delta \rho[r']} dr'$$, so $$\frac{\delta F_r}{\delta \rho[r']} = \delta(r-r')$$, as expected.

As a matter of philosophy, one has to ask when Wikipedia should push a point of view and when it should just reflect what exists. I don't know a good answer to this. But I'd love people's thoughts on whether we couldn't incorporate this way of looking at functional derivatives into this article.

Rwilsker (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for trying to make this stuff rigorous. It's ubiquitous in physics, but it's really hard to find any formal description in the literature that's also usable. --130.149.215.94 (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Use any mathematical textbook on Lagrangian mechanics? Seriously. 81.225.32.185 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking of modifying the page to flip the order of appearance of the subsections "Functional derivative" and "Functional differential" in a hope to make clear that the definition of the differential

$$ F[\rho + \eta] = F[\rho] + \delta F[\rho,\eta] + O(\eta^2)$$

comes first and only sometimes can $$\delta F[\rho,\eta]$$ be written as integration against some distribution, which is then called the functional derivative of $$F$$ at $$\rho$$. The current phrasing makes one think that this distribution (the functional derivative) is more fundamental, and then "the functional differential is defined in terms of the functional derivative". This is just backwards.

Also, why does the subsection "Functional derivative" start by mentionning manifolds? Maybe whoever wrote that part had in mind a Banach space or some sort of locally convex topological vector space, but for general manifolds in general the sum $$\rho+\varepsilon\phi$$ doesn't make sense.

I will leave this here for a while before proceeding with the edits. -- JackozeeHakkiuz (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Properties
Hi!

There are some examples - which is good. What is completely missing though is a section with "Properties" of the functional derivative.

I am thinking about the "product rule", the "chain rule" and things like that. (These rules, by the way, are quite easy to derive, especially if one "cheats" and use the physics treatment.)

I suggest a new section labelled "Properties" where properties of the functional derivative are listed. YohanN7 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Computational step
I added a computational step to the definition that would have saved me a lot of frustration and time had someone put it there for me. I didn't know this stuff before coming to this page, and I had to do a lot of digging to unravel what you're doing. Do we want people to learn, or are we going for brevity? I understand if you want to delete it (actually I don't), but you threw in the epsilon out of nowhere, and didn't clarify it further down the page. I know the traditional job of an epsilon, but coming at it blind, especially when you aren't familiar with functional derivative notation, most people who don't know it already won't automatically deduce that step, and so right off the bat you crush outsiders who are fluent in the language but not the mechanics.

173.25.54.191 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "but you threw in the epsilon out of nowhere, and didn't clarify it further down the page." — Thanks for pointing that out, although that was done according to the source. I just now added clarification of ε after the equations and deleted the right hand side that you added. Regarding ε, not clear why you didn't "clarify it further down the page" as you thought was needed, instead of making an edit that is just creating a right hand side of an equation by adding factors 1/ε and ε to the left hand side, which didn't seem useful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Leading section of the entry
I apologize for writing this note so late, but I've been busy and forgot it completely. However, here there is a very short list of the reasons why I changed the lead section. Well, as a matter of fact, this is all. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the manual of style (WP:MOS), precisely the section WP:BOLDTITLE, the first sentence should give a short explanation of what the concept/item is, not where it is used/to what field it belongs. This was the main reason that made me beginning editing the lead section.
 * The changes I made in the lines following the first sentences of the heading section are motivated by the following reasons, however not so compelling as the preceding one. It is inexact that functionals are usually expressed as integrals: this is true for some functionals, not for all (a trivial example: Dirac delta function has not the structure of an integral). However, the idea of using an integral functional in order to give an example of the concept is nice (and also such integral formalism is customary in a variety of useful contexts), so I tried (perhaps in a too verbose way) to precise the hypotheses under which the example works. This is also the reason for which I added the exact expression on the functional derivative as the integral of the Euler-Lagrange operator multiplied by the increment, which can be found in every text on the calculus of variation (it is exactly the step before the use of DuBois-Reymond lemma in deriving the Euler-Lagrange equation, 1-dimensional case).

 * 1) Thanks for pointing out a more preferred style for the first sentence. Also according to WP:BOLDTITLE, we should display the title as early as possible in the first sentence. Here is a rewrite of the original version of the first paragraph that accomplishes that. I thought it was better to rewrite the original, rather than the present one, because it states the concept more simply.
 * "A functional derivative (or variational derivative) relates a change in a functional to a change in a  function that the functional depends on. Functional derivatives are used in the calculus of variations, which is a field of mathematical analysis."
 * This is the first installment in response to your above message and changes. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 * 2) Re "It is inexact that functionals are usually expressed as integrals" — You implemented this idea in the following part of your version: "The concept can be easily understand by considering the common case encountered in the classical calculus of variation". Using  the idea in this suggested version of yours, I rewrote the corresponding sentence in the original version:
 * "In the calculus of variations, functionals are usually expressed in terms of an integral of functions, their arguments,  and their derivatives."
 * Then I restored the rest of the corresponding part of the lead before your discussion of Euler-Lagrange, since you haven't explained your other changes in that part and those changes don't appear to be an improvement. The result for that part of the lead is:

 * This is the second installment in response to your above message and changes. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I partly agree with the changes you made: however, I cannot tell you now precisely where I do not agree since, as I told you on my talk page, I'm busy. You'll have to wait the weekend, and I'll answer here with a complete biography and links. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I can now precise why not all the changes you made are improvements, and why I consequently modified it: In an article about a technical or jargon term, the opening sentence or paragraph should normally contain a link to the field of study that the term comes from. "In heraldry, tinctures are the colours used to emblazon a coat of arms."
 * You have not read completely WP:BOLDTITLE since, in the first sentence, you should also provide context, as stated precisely in the subsection WP:CONTEXTLINK:
 * therefore, I changed the first sentence in order to comply this accepted, simpler and clearer practice.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniele.tampieri  (talk • contribs)   20:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree re first sentence and context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On referencing and References section
Some observations as above, related to the reference section and referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniele.tampieri  (talk • contribs)   20:49, 3 March 2013  (UTC)
 * "Undid revision 541704933 by Daniele.tampieri (talk) per §9.64 of Chicago Style Manual": unfortunately, the WP:CT page, reporting all accepted citation templates and examples, does not cite the Chicago Style Manual as a unique source of the true style, nor it forces an editor to drop a digit (!) to follow it: as you can see, every example in those page does not follow such practice. Therefore I reverted your removal of the "2" in the relevant reference. Also, I did not find anything on such topic in the Manual at the paragraph you stated: did you mean chapter 9, paragraph 64? I have access to the 2010 edition: is it the edition you refer to?
 * Since you insist about the "2", that's OK. I don't think that Wikipedia guidelines has stated a preferred style.
 * "§9.64 of Chicago Style Manual" was referring to the 15th edition of 2003. If you're interested, it was in Chapter 9 "Numbers", "inclusive Numbers", §9.64 Abbreviating, or condensing, inclusive numbers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

hyphens and en-dashes
See my recent edit. "Thomas–Fermi" required an en-dash, not a hyphen. But Springer-Verlag requires a hyphen, not an en-dash. It's not one person or thing named Springer and another named Verlag. Rather, "Verlag" means "publishing company". That way of using a hyphen is standard in German. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * En_dash --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Integral L of a functional
In the second paragraph, we have "In an integral L of a functional, if a function f is varied..." which doesn't make sense to me. L is not an integral, it is a function which is part of the integrand which is integrated to form the functional. Maybe replace the text with "In a functional, if a function f is varied...", or something better. Ian Hinder (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Powers of $L$ ?
The current article contains the phrase: "If $f$ is varied by adding to it a function $δf$, and the resulting integrand $L$ is expanded in powers of $δf$"

As I understand the context, $$\delta $$ is real variable, so expanding a function in powers of $$\delta $$ would indicate a Taylor series expansion in powers of $$\delta$$. However $$f$$ is a given function. What procedure is used to perform an expansion "in powers of $$ \delta f $$"? Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

what is the mathematical background
This article about a mathematical topic seems to use the appendix of a quantum chemistry book as a main source...Where is the rigorous mathematical information in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:911:103:134:109:144:1 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Chain rule doesn't make sense

 * $$\displaystyle\frac{\delta F[G[\rho]] }{\delta\rho(y)} = \int dx \frac{\delta F[G]}{\delta G(x)}_{G = G[\rho]}\cdot\frac {\delta G[\rho](x)} {\delta\rho(y)} \ . $$

The notation used isn't defined anywhere else in the article; and $$G$$ can't be a functional. --Svennik (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dispute claim that the functional derivative is the Frechet / Gateaux derivative
The functional derivative is (in a way) a special case of the directional derivative (sometimes known as the Gateaux derivative) where the direction vector is a delta function. In other words, $$\frac{\delta F[\phi(x)]}{\delta \phi(y)}=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\frac{F[\phi(x)+\varepsilon\delta(x-y)]-F[\phi(y)]}{\varepsilon}. $$ It is certainly not the Gateaux or Frechet derivative, and this claim should be removed. --Svennik (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. --Svennik (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Idea for a better introduction
Essentially, I propose using the analogy:
 * Gradient : Directional derivative = Functional derivative : Fréchet derivative

Essentially, the functional derivative generalises the gradient to infinite dimensions, so that if $$\nabla F(x)$$ denotes the functional derivative at the function $$x$$, we have that $$\langle \nabla F(x), v\rangle = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{F(x + \epsilon v) - F(x)}{\epsilon}$$, where $$\langle-,-\rangle$$ denotes the inner product. What do people think of this? --Svennik (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 * What kind of inner product do you have in a general Banach space, matey? 81.225.32.185 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the functional derivative isn't defined for general Banach spaces, is it? Only for spaces of functions where the integral int(f*g) is at least a bilinear form, so I dont think that the analogy is that far from truth. What do you think? JackozeeHakkiuz (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Example where delta function test function fails
Since the article goes into some length explaining why the "physicist's" definition is ill-defined perhaps an example can be included that shows this. I.e. somewhere where the "mathematician's" definition is well-defined where the "physicist's" is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.104.107.227 (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 * The delta "function" is not a function, so how can a *functional* map it to anything? Functionals are defined on function spaces. 81.225.32.185 (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is seriously flawed and doesn't make sense
This article is in critical need of rewriting, right now it's from the applied physicist's point of view and have grave mathematical errors.

This article shouldn't exist in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.32.185 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this article is leaving much to wish for when it comes to mathematics, and that it obfuscates much of the clarity found in a standard mathematical textbook. These "errors" don't however mean the article is wrong. It just means the article is bad at explaining a mathematical concept properly. Whether or not this should be the case is up for debate. I think it explains it clearly enough for the applications of the functional derivative, but not if you are here to learn what it really is. 84.216.129.69 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Flipped order of differential and derivative and added references
Hello. As mentioned previously in my reply to Rwilsker's post above (titled "A different way to look at this") I made some changes that I think address some of the worries expressed by previous editors, in particular the remarks mentioned that some people define the functional differential as the Fréchet derivative and some as the Gateaux derivative but tried to keep the easy-to-use definition of the differential quotient that was already present. Also flipped the appearance of the functional differential and the functional derivative in the article. Hope it's better like that. Comments are welcome! JackozeeHakkiuz (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Functional derivative


text:
Talk:Eccentricity (behavior)

Title
Should this just be Eccentric behavior? Jake 22:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are different types of eccentricity (i.e mathematical), so no, behaviour in commas is fine.

IanJSB —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanJSB (talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
"Bad speller[2] (usually uncommon) "

What does does "usually uncommon" mean really? Wouldn't that be the same as common? Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.50.103 (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually uncommon is not a double negative. So, it would mean exactly what it says...not very common, not common, rarely common, etc.

Drug usage
The article says: "Eccentric behavior has also been attributed to drug use." Which, in the context of psychology- is a functionally retarded statement. By "drug use", do you mean ONLY 'illegal' drugs, or does aspirin also cause eccentricity? If you actually meant 'mood altering' or 'psychoactive' rather, did you include alcohol- or are we back to somehow supposing that the legality of a drug has some basis for impacting whether or not that drug might inspire eccentric behavior in a person? (This very well could be true- despite sounding somewhat absurd).

Basically, the statement "Eccentric behavior has also been attributed to drug use." is a complete cop-out to science.

Examples
It seems like it would make this article both clearer and more interesting to name some historical figures commonly asserted to be eccentric, people like Howard Hughes or Ludwig II of Bavaria. On the other hand, since the term seems to be a bit in the eye of the beholder, this might not be strictly appropriate for an encyclopedia. What do other people think? Markwiki (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is all eccentricity looked on positively?
Here's the part from the article that I question " given the overwhelmingly positive stereotypes often associated with eccentricity, detailed above, it would seem only natural that certain individuals would seek to be associated with this sort of character type." Granted, in fiction, popular characters are often eccentric. But in real life, not all eccentric people are charismatic or even likeable. Many eccentric people are scary, creepy, incomprehensible, socially inept, or otherwise, not very fun to be around. A lot of real life eccentrics tend to get left alone. Mr. ATOZ 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC) No, it's not, but you get used to it, especially after being one myself and growing up with some.137.118.106.30 (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the whole thing though. People very rarely meet genuine eccentrics. All they have to go on is the idealised fictional eccentrics like Doctor Who and similar. They never see the crippling social problems or strange obbsesions. Popular culture have idealised them and being an 'individual' so most people do hold a possitive view eccentrics and would see them as a role model.
 * What you say is true regarding idealized eccentrics who usually are depicted as invariably witty, intellectual, artistic, liberal, confident, brilliant, romantic, rennaisance men, ect. ect and in the case of males, boyishly handsome or average looking but still considered cute. Doctor Who does come to mind. However, I doubt that fits the mold of most "genuine" eccentrics that you're likely to meet in the real world. Real life eccentrics are probably going to have more in common with Rorschach from Watchmen than the Doctor from Doctor Who.Mr. ATOZ (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I take offense to that! Kiri621x (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed material
I removed the following material (but left in the part in parentheses):
 * (Eccentricity is often associated with genius, giftedness, or extreme creativity); the word itself is often employed to euphemize or invert a connotation of madness hence the phrase "there's a method to their madness", implying inscrutable complexity or originality in lieu of the dismissible randomness of common lunacy.

The sentence is awkward and difficult to understand. It uses the word randomness to mean, basically, "eccentricity," a rather informal and slangy sense of the word. It misuses the "method to my madness" quote (which comes from Hamlet and refers to deliberately strange behavior to achieve a specific end). Furthermore, it is unattributed conjecture and is not encyclopedic at all. Fishal 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraphs, which are original research and not relevant to the article:

While as a nation the British are often depicted as eccentric by other nations, inside the UK this epithet is most usually reserved for the English. Their twin national characteristics of insularity and ingenuity produce a frame of mind conducive to designing individual solutions to the problems of life, and then sticking with them in spite of social disapproval.

It may also be that the British gained their reputation for eccentricity as a result of exporting their own social norms to the nations they conquered while they were building the British Empire. There are, for instance, many depictions of English afternoon tea being taken in jungle environments or half-way up Everest. Codik 10:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The list of characteristics is a little bit misleading: I think that it would be appropriate to say something to the effect of: "...the following are traits that are often popularly associated with eccentricity...". As is, it appears to suggest that most of these traits must be present. Personally, as a person who is rather "eccentric", I'd suggest that traits like "single" or "avoiding others" need not be a part of eccentricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.72.105 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Odyssey of the Mind - relevance?
Is the section 'Odyssey of the Mind' of any relevance whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.93.105.137 (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Einstein
I think the bit about Einstein picking dog ends up off the street and smoking them should be removed. The article makes it seem like he did this regularly, but in fact he only did it after his doctor forbade him from smoking. The information comes from a letter from his grandson, Bernhard Caesar Einstein. Here is an article about it from the Telegraph. I have left the information in because it is at least slightly eccentric behaviour, but it's still misrepresented in the article. Reidlophile (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Eccentric as a mental illness (ICD-10 F60-8)
On the WHO site, I discovered "eccentric" as a mental illness (which is quite subjective, but nevertheless medically accepted) under the ICD-10, F60-8 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision – Other specific personality disorders.) Could anyone find out more about this? Thanks! --Enigma (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics and mental illness
The article said, "this may be related in the same way that introverts (introversion) suffer more from their mental illness than do extroverts (extroversion), who tend to make those around them suffer instead by their actions or deeds (outward expression of their illness rather than inward)."

I deleted this material under the grounds it's too controversial and obscure for an encyclopedia. It requires previous knowledge of Jung's theory of extroversion and introversion. In any event, its hard to say whether introverts, as opposed to extroverts, suffer more. Suffering is hard to define let alone measure.

The argument can be made that it is really the mentally ill extroverts who suffer more, owing to the retribution others impose on such individuals for what society considers wrongful deeds. It should be mentioned this talk does not deal with whether or not the punishment, or the so-called correction, is really deserved and just. --Oilstone (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RE Eccentricity as a mental illness
The following link leads to an article by a reputable Psychiatrist that questions the validity of "disorders" such as this. He is more than a bit convincing in his arguments.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/06/27/2003476462

It is also quite likely that the word is commonly misapplied... like many others.

(A prime example being orientate. Next time it is used instead of orient query the necessity of facing East.... which is the correct meaning of the word.)

If a million people make a mistake... it is still a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanJSB (talk • contribs) 13:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

David Weeks' list of characteristics
The old list was problematic. It cited a source that had re-written Weeks' list (http://www.gnomesondope.com/stuff/on-being-eccentric/), had ten fewer items than Weeks now claims (15 vs. Weeks 25) and had them in a different order. (Weeks claims his list is in descending order of importance.)

I replaced it with a direct quote, from Weeks site (http://celebratingeccentrics.com/the-definition-of-eccentricity/) of just the top 5 elements (of the 25 total he lists. Weeks claims that these five are close to constituitive of eccentricity, while the additional elements are only frequently or sometimes found. cshirky (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition of eccentricity
Where did the definition for eccentricity come from? Particularly the sentence "This behavior would typically be perceived as unusual or unnecessary, without being demonstrably maladaptive"?

Considering little to no research has examined the perception of eccentric behaviour, there isn't a basis for this statement. Additionally, eccentric behaviour, especially with regards to eccentric social behaviour, could easily be perceived as maladpative. Consider famous eccentrics such as Hetty Green, one of the richest women in the world in her lifetime, who always wore the same clothes and only changed her underwear when they wore out. This behaviour is unhygienic and personally distressing, making it a prime example of maladaptive eccentric behaviour.

Relates to Mr ATOZ post in '06 about "Is all eccentricity looked on positively" as well. He gives more examples of eccentric maladaptivity.

Rcro (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Idealism?
Idealism is eccentric? What a poor, poor jaded species we have become when wishing the best for all is not considered normal.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"Quirky.com" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Quirky.com. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eccentricity (behavior)


text:
Water torture

Water torture encompasses a variety of techniques using water to inflict physical or psychological harm on a victim as a form of torture or execution.

Forced ingestion
In this form of water torture, water is forced down the throat and into the stomach. It was used as a legal torture and execution method by the courts in France in the 17th and 18th centuries. At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century it was used against Filipinos by American Forces during the Philippine–American War and was employed against British Commonwealth, American and Chinese prisoners of war during World War II by the Japanese. The Human Rights Watch organization reports that in the 2000s, security forces in Uganda sometimes forced a detainee to lie face up under an open water spigot.

Water intoxication can result from drinking too much water. This has caused some fatalities over the years in fraternities in North America during initiation week. For example, a person was hazed to death by Chi Tau (local) of Chico State (California) in 2005 via the forcing of pushups and the drinking of water from a bottle.

Fear of drowning
Waterboarding refers to a technique involving water poured over the face or head of the subject in order to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning. Often a wet cloth is placed in the subject's mouth, giving them the impression that they are drowning.

Dripping water
What is called the "Chinese water torture" was a torture described by Hippolytus de Marsiliis in the 16th century that was supposed to drive its victim insane with the stress of water dripping on a part of the forehead for a very long time. It may also be characterised by the inconsistent pattern of water drips. There are no expert opinions on the true cause of torture in this method.

Dunking
This form of torture was used in the early modern period as a trial by ordeal.

Other forms

 * Supposedly, the Rasphuis in Amsterdam, a 17th-century institution that attempted to rehabilitate young male criminals through labor, contained a "water dungeon", the so-called Waterhuis. If prisoners refused to work, they were placed in a cellar that quickly filled with water after a sluice was opened and were handed a pump that enabled them to keep from drowning. Geert Mak and other authors, however, point out that there is no evidence for the existence of this room.

 * In the 1970s at Bautzen Prison in the German Democratic Republic there was a punishment cell that filled up with water up to a red light which a large prisoner described as at nose level if he is on tip toes.

 * In the 20th century, various U.S. newspapers published details of "water torture" (or the "torture of thirst") in Japan which involved subjecting the victim to a high salt diet for several days, without rice or water, and then offering them water in exchange for a confession: "it is difficult to imagine a more cruel device."

Other

 * Chinese Water Torture Cell
 * Trial by drowning

title: Water torture


text:
Talk:Cross of Valour (Australia)

GC
When did it replace the GC in Australia, because the most recent living civilian award the GC was to Constable Michael Kenneth Pratt of the Victoria Police, Melbourne, Australia for arresting two armed bank robbers (London Gazette, July 5, 1978). Philip Baird Shearer 22:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See my quote below which includes a brief description of the bravery of Mr Michael Pratt GC. Mr Pratt's award was approved by the Queen within her own gift. Here's what the official Australian web page states:

Imperial Awards Prior to 1975 Australians were recognised through the British Imperial system. Medals awarded to Australians included the Order of the British Empire, military decorations for gallantry, decorations for military service and campaign and long service medals. By 1991 Australian honours and awards were available to recognise all service previously recognised through the British Imperial system. The Queen can still recognise Australians through the British Imperial system within her own gift.[1]
 * 1) http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/imperial.cfm
 * 101.162.226.77 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

File:CVAustRibbon.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:CVAustRibbon.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CVAustRibbon.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct first-time use of post-nominal
On the first occurrence of the last name of the recipient in the text of an encyclopaedic article about an award granted to a person or persons, the relevant post-nominal should be stated. This is even though, obviously, at the time of his or her action, the person had not yet been recognised officially for his or her bravery. An example of this correct use (with my emboldening), taken from the official Australian web page, is:

"Between 1940 and 1978, when the last George Cross awarded to an Australian was presented, 14 Crosses were awarded, five of this total going to civilians. This total does not include substitutions of the George Cross for the Albert Medal and the Edward Medal carried out in 1971. An Australian civilian who received the George Cross was Mr Michael Pratt GC. He was a constable in the Victoria Police Force who was not on duty and was not armed, and who was wounded attempting to arrest armed robbers. The Queen approved his award for outstanding bravery, devotion to duty and complete disregard for his safety, in attempting to arrest the robbers. Mr Pratt’s citation was published in a Supplement to The London Gazette of Monday, 3rd July 1978 - PDF 47KB [1,2]" 1) http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/imperial.cfm#gc 2) http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/docs/london_gazette_04071978.pdf 101.162.226.77 (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross of Valour (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091105163654/http://www.forbravery.org/crossvalour.html to http://www.forbravery.org/crossvalour.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cross of Valour (Australia)


text:
Quebec lieutenant

In Canadian politics, a Quebec lieutenant is a Quebec politician who is selected by the party leader to be his or her main advisor and/or spokesperson on issues specific to Quebec. This is particularly the case when the leader is an anglophone, though several francophone leaders have also had Quebec lieutenants; all francophone leaders of the Liberal Party have had Quebec lieutenants. It is typically filled by a Member of Parliament or at least a current or former candidate for Parliament. The position is usually a well-known but often an unofficial assignment, and has no official legal status.

Notable Quebec lieutenants
Some past and current Quebec lieutenants include:

title: Quebec lieutenant


text:
Talk:Plesiosaurus

What is the process for merging data? I missed Plesiosaur when I created this page. :( It seems (to me) that the scientific name is more appropriate for a title, so this would be the primary page.  How would you fix links to the other page???  Nodosaurus 22:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I moved the content to Plesiosaur and shall move this Discussion there too. Plesiosaurus will remain as a link, so nothing is lost. (Compare entry Mosasaur, which includes other genera.) --Wetman 22:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status of Plesiosaurus tournemirensis
Plesiosaurus tournemirensis Sciau et al., 1990 has now been given its own genus, Occitanosaurus Bardet et al., 1999. Thus, it is NOT a junior synonym of Plesiosaurus guilelmiimperatoris Dames, 1895.

 * feel free to edit the page accordingly! Maybe a page for Occitanosaurus would be in order as well (I notice all the dinosaur genera names have at least stubs, why not the same for the Sauropterygia?  ;-)) M Alan Kazlev 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Length
Could we perhaps have the length in U.S. Customary System units? Ratso 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

P. guilielmiiperatoris/Seeleysaurus
This article states that "only two species are unambiguiously recognised" and names P. dolichodeirus and P. guilielmiiperatoris, yet Plesiosauria.com states "Bakker (1993) retained the name Seeleysaurus for P. guilielmiiperatoris, a taxonomic change later justified and formalised by Grossman (2007)", and there is also a short Wikipedia article about it (Seeleysaurus). So what's up? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox: class
The taxobox says their class is "Sauropsida", with a link to Reptile. According to Sauropsida, it is an unranked taxon, not a class. The taxobox should be change to say either "Class: reptile" or "(unranked): Sauropsida". Which would be preferable? (Is there a consensus here for dealing with the "reptilia is paraphyletic" problem?) Wardog (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus as reflected in the automatic Taxobox is Reptilia. I'll implement the auto box which should solve the issue. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Extinction is "currently believed", not "known"
I changed "known to be extinct" because that is scientifically inaccurate. Science is based on proof via the discovery of evidence. You cannot prove a negative, and extinction is a negative, therefore it can never really be proved and is therefore never "known" in the scientific sense. People thought that the coelacanth was "known" to be extinct for many decades -- right up until evidence was discovered which proved that it wasn't after all. Nobody knew germs existed until they were discoverd, either. Scientific knowledge is constantly subject to change pending the discovery of new evidence. Therefore, until such evidence is discovered, it is more scientifically accurate to say it is "currently believed" to be extinct. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are zero tetrapod genera alive today that were also alive 65 million years ago. Genera simply do not and probably cannot last that long without either going extinct or evolving into new genera. The idea that plesiosaurs are alive today is ludicrous; the idea that Plesiosaurus itself is alive today is biologically impossible. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence states it is extinct. Referencing "myths" and then stating it's known to be extinct sounds defensive and probably invites this kind of challenge. Isn't stating it's extinct in the opening sentence sufficient? --74.211.59.228 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Plesiosaurus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Plesiosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Marmornectes": From Liopleurodon:  From Plesiosauria:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Plesiosaurus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Plesiosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bensonetal12": From Anningasaura:  From Meyerasaurus:  From Plesiosauria:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plesiosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712103044/http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/220Lepidosauromorpha/220.600.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/220Lepidosauromorpha/220.600.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902043146/http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Sauropterygia/Plesiosauria.htm to http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Sauropterygia/Plesiosauria.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Plesiosaurus


text:
Talk:Akash SAM

Needs to be merged with Akash ?. Reasoning is that when you search for Aakash on google, you get 238 hits, while for Aakash you will find more than a few thousands

Merge 'Aakash' and 'Akash'
Done, also redirected Akash_missile to point to this, while including the extra info available on that page. Included some extra bits during the edit.

The official name for this project within DRDO is 'Akash', spelt with one "A". I'm sure of this because I used to work there.

Aakash is a name
Aakash could be name of a person (mostly in India), Aakash means Sky. This is worth to mention this also.  Links Website of Aakash

title: Talk:Akash SAM


text:
Talk:Beverly Briley

Untitled
Briley's first term was four years, his second five. This was the result of a special one-time provsion in the Metropolitan Charter to get the Metro elections (mayor and Metropolitan Council) out of the cycle of other elections and put them in " off years"; the second set of terms (1966-1971) was for five years as a result. This means that, barring futher charter revision, Briley will have served as mayor longer than anyone else can, 13 years. There is considerable discussion about whether the charter provisions establishing term limits for council members adopted later and limiting them to two consecutive terms apply to mayors as well, it is unknown whether Mayor Purcell will have any interest in challengning this. This is a good stub; I hope that it leads to something great; Briley defnitely was "notable" and deserving of a page regardless of one's personal opinion of him. Rlquall 22:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Was the 1962 runoff against West, or Clifford Allen? I know the 1966 runoff was against West as I remember it, I remember Metro coming in but was a little young to try to understand politics in 1962.  Rlquall 22:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Beverly Briley


text:
Leadership school

A leadership school is an organization, or entity within an organization, that provides education that focuses on the development of leaders.

This activity can be undertaken at different levels. It can be in the form of training, seminars, institutes, or of more comprehensive frameworks that lead to the awarding of a certificate, degree, or diploma. The leadership curriculum is intended to shape leadership behavior and the approach used in developing the curriculum can vary, depending on the beliefs of the founders. These things make leadership have a rich and broad meaning which can also make it difficult for some people who want to study leadership to find a common ground.

title: Leadership school


text:
Heinz Holliger

Heinz Robert Holliger (born 21 May 1939) is a Swiss virtuoso oboist, composer and conductor. Celebrated for his versatility and technique, Holliger is among the most prominent oboists of his generation. His repertoire includes Baroque and Classical pieces, but he has regularly engaged in lesser known pieces of Romantic music, as well as his own compositions. He often performed contemporary works with his wife, the harpist Ursula Holliger; composers such as Berio, Carter, Henze, Krenek, Lutosławski, Martin, Penderecki, Stockhausen and Yun have written works for him. Holliger is a noted composer himself, writing works such as the opera Schneewittchen (1998).

Biography
Holliger was born in Langenthal, Switzerland. He began playing the oboe at age eleven, and studied at the conservatory of Bern before taking first prize for oboe in the Geneva International Music Competition in 1959. He studied composition with Sándor Veress and Pierre Boulez.

He has become one of the world's most celebrated oboists, and many composers, Luciano Berio, Elliott Carter, Hans Werner Henze, Ernst Krenek, Witold Lutosławski, Frank Martin, Krzysztof Penderecki, Henri Pousseur, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Sándor Veress and Isang Yun have written works for him. He began teaching at the Hochschule für Musik Freiburg, Germany in 1966.

In 1972 Holliger, Maurice Bourgue (oboe), Klaus Thunemann (bassoon), and Christiane Jaccottet (continuo) et al. recorded the Six Trio Sonatas for Oboe and Bassoon by Jan Dismas Zelenka. This recording is credited for the "Zelenka Renaissance".

Holliger has also composed many works in a variety of media. Many of his works have been recorded for the ECM label.

Invited by Walter Fink, he was the 17th composer featured in the annual Komponistenporträt of the Rheingau Musik Festival in 2007 in chamber music and a symphonic concert that he conducted himself, including works of Claude Debussy and Robert Schumann along with his Lieder after Georg Trakl and Gesänge der Frühe on words of Schumann and Friedrich Hölderlin.

On the occasion of Paul Sacher's 70th birthday, Holliger was one of twelve composer-friends of his who were asked by Russian cellist Mstislav Rostropovich to write compositions for cello solo using his name spelt out in German names for musical notes on the theme (eS, A, C, H, E, Re); Holliger contributed a Chaconne for Violoncello Solo. The compositions were partially presented in Zurich on 2 May 1976. The whole "eSACHERe" project was (for the first time in complete performance) performed by Czech cellist František Brikcius in May 2011 in Prague.

Heinz Holliger was married to the harpist Ursula Holliger née Hänggi (1937–2014).

Awards

 * 1987: Léonie Sonning Music Prize (Denmark)
 * 1991: Ernst von Siemens Music Prize
 * 1994: The Prince Pierre of Monaco Music Composition Prize for (S)irató
 * 2007: Zürich Festival Prize
 * 2008: Rheingau Musik Preis
 * 2016: Honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
 * 2017: Robert Schumann Prize of the City of Zwickau
 * 2018: Pour le Mérite for Sciences and Arts

Selected works

 * Sequenzen über Johannes I,32 (1962) for harp
 * Siebengesang (1966–1967) for solo oboe, orchestra, voices and loudspeaker
 * String Quartet (1973)
 * Scardanelli-Zyklus (1975–1991) for solo flute, small orchestra, tape and mixed choir
 * Come and Go / Va et vient / Kommen und Gehen (1976/1977), opera to a text by Samuel Beckett
 * Not I (1978–1980) monodrama for soprano and tape
 * Studie über Mehrklänge (1979) for oboe solo
 * Lieder ohne Worte (1982–1994), two sets of works for violin and piano
 * Präludium, Arioso and Passacaglia, for two guitars (1985)
 * Gesänge der Frühe for choir, orchestra and tape, after Schumann and Hölderlin (1987)
 * What Where (1988), chamber opera
 * Alb-Chehr (1991) for speaker, singers and chamber ensemble
 * (S)irató for orchestra (1992–03)
 * Fünf Lieder für Altstimme und großes Orchester nach Gedichten von Georg Trakl (1992–2006)
 * Violin Concerto "Hommage à Louis Soutter" (1993–1995)
 * Schneewittchen (1998), opera based on a text by Robert Walser
 * Partita (1999), piano cycle
 * Puneigä, ten songs with twelve players after Anna Maria Bacher's poems (2000/02)
 * Ma'mounia for percussion solo and instrumental quintet (2002)
 * Romancendres for cello and piano (2003)
 * Induuchlen, four songs for counter-tenor and horn, for Klaus Huber (2004)
 * Toronto-Exercises for flute (also alto flute), clarinet, violin, harp and marimbaphone (2005)
 * Lunea (2018), opera based on texts by Nikolaus Lenau

Discography

 * Jan Dismas Zelenka: Trio Sonatas (ECM, 1997)
 * Sándor Veress: Passacaglia / Songs / Musica Concertante (ECM, 2000)
 * Beiseit / Alb-Chehr (ECM, 2000)
 * Lauds and Lamentations (ECM, 2003)

title: Heinz Holliger


text:
Talk:18610 Arthurdent

Untitled
This page claims Felix Hormuth discovered Arthurdent. The List of asteroids (18001-19000) claims it was one 'Starkenberg'. Anyone know what the truth is? The Singing Badger 22:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * No contradiction; Starkenburg (not Starkenberg) is the Starkenburg Observatory (Starkenburg-Sternwarte), Heppenheim, Germany, where Felix Hormuth (and others, such as Matthias Busch) work. What we need is a Starkenburg page identifying Hormuth as the observer when 18610 Arthurdent was discovered. Note that Klet also publishes more names in its pages than the MPC lists...
 * This link establishes Hormuth as the discoverer, and also the one who suggested the name.
 * Urhixidur 04:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Date of naming announcement
If anyone cares, the online (paid) version of the Encyclopedia Britannica ALSO states that the name was announced on 10 May 2001. --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The actual date on the MPC (now online) in 9 May 2001. I referenced that date and tidied up the related discussion. Also added an infobox with characteristics of the asteroid. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ultimate Irony
Anyone else find it ironic that this asteroid is named after the main character of the Hitchhiker's Guide series of books, and was named in the dsays surrounding the writer of that series' death? not to mention that other asteroid... This must be the work of 42. 62.252.178.158 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 18610 Arthurdent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303171200/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc051401.html to http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc051401.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:18610 Arthurdent


text:
Becky Worley

Becky Worley (born February 4, 1971) is an American journalist and broadcaster. She is the tech contributor for Good Morning America on ABC, host and blogger for a web show on Yahoo! Tech.

Education
Worley graduated cum laude from Middlebury College in Vermont studying Japanese and started playing Rugby for the Berkley All-Blues. She earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993. She later received a Master of Arts in Education from the Learning, Design, and Technology program at the Stanford Graduate School of Education in 2005.

Career
Worley worked for KOMO-TV news in Seattle from 1993 through 1996. She left to consult on web design and information technology for small business.

She then spent 6 years (1998–2005) with ZDTV / TechTV. though she started as a Line producer for Call For Help Worley is probably best known for being TechLive's Computer Security Analyst. She reported, anchored the news, and hosted a how-to show for TechTV. Worley wrote TechTV's Security Alert: Stories of Real People Protecting Themselves from Identity Theft, Viruses, and Scams (TechTV, November, 2003) (ISBN 0-7357-1352-9).

In 2004, Worley hosted a series on the National Geographic Channel called Mother of All, a show in which fine arts and industrial arts were blended together using whatever material was available to make the "Mother of All" things. Worley began on ABC's Good Morning America in 2005, and has appeared on their Weekend Edition starting in 2011. She has appeared as a Technology Contributor for ABC Evening News since 2011. She has been with Yahoo! Tech since 2006 as a video blogger and host of the weekly web broadcast Hook Me Up. From 2006 through 2007, she hosted a show for the Travel Channel called The Best Places to Find Cash and Treasures. She spent part of 2010 as a co-host to Tom Merritt on a daily podcast in the TWiT.tv network called Tech News Today.

Personal life
Worley was raised on the island of Maui from 1977 and currently resides in the San Francisco Bay Area. On January 5, 2008, she gave birth to twins - Emalia and Finn Worley Mitchell.

title: Becky Worley


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan smyth

Susan smyth
Possibly not notable even if true, but I couldn't find any evidence that this is true. "Susan Smyth" "Vanity Fair" gets 0 hits. Originally nominated for speedy, but not speedy-worth. Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:09, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I speedied it, convinced it was a joke. Admit now that it may just be a poorly written bio of a non-notable. Delete. adamsan 22:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: I think the speedy is somewhat valid. 1) No verification from web source. 2) Internal nonsense claims: "works mercilessly" on Help the Aged and "runs" a pathology department and is a model. Geogre 05:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
SS Empire Peacemaker

SS Empire Peacemaker was a British convoy rescue ship that served at the end of World War II, originally laid down as the corvette HMS Scarborough Castle (K536). Post-war she served as an Army transport ship before being scrapped in 1955.

Ship history
The ship was ordered from Fleming & Ferguson Ltd. of Paisley on 23 January 1943 as a Castle-class corvette. She was launched on 8 September 1944 as Scarborough Castle (K536), but further work was then cancelled, and she was eventually completed as a convoy rescue ship in January 1945. Under the ownership of the Ministry of War Transport, and managed by the Ellerman City Line, she sailed on eight convoys between early February and the end of the war in Europe in May 1945. During that time she rescued three survivors from an aircraft which had overrun the flight deck of the MAC ship MV Empire MacAlpine.

Post-war she was transferred to the Transport Branch of the Royal Army Service Corps for service as a troop transport. In October 1945 she sailed from the Clyde to Arkhangelsk to repatriate a Royal Navy Shore Party. In January 1946 she made three voyages between Southampton and St. Helier, Jersey, carrying returning service personnel.

In 1952 Empire Peacemaker, Empire Shelter and Empire Lifeguard provided a shuttle ferry service for Army personnel between Port Said, Egypt, and Famagusta, Cyprus, as well as making occasional troop movement voyages to Libya and Malta.

Empire Peacemaker was finally laid up at Falmouth, Cornwall, in 1954. In July 1955 she was sold to a Belgian shipbreaker and was towed to Antwerp, and was broken up by Jos de Smedt in Burght in December.

Convoys
Empire Peacemaker sailed on the following convoys:
 * OS/KMS-110KM — River Clyde to Gibraltar (February 1945)
 * MKS-82G — Gibraltar to Liverpool (February 1945)
 * OS/KMS-114KM — Southend to Gibraltar (March 1945)
 * MKS-86G — Gibraltar to Liverpool (March 1945)
 * OS/KMS-118KM — Clyde to Gibraltar (March 1945)
 * MKS-90G — Gibraltar to Liverpool (March 1945)
 * ON-296 — Liverpool to New York City (April 1945)
 * HX-354 — New York City to Liverpool (May 1945)

title: SS Empire Peacemaker