text:
Rustavi 2

Rustavi 2 (რუსთავი 2, "Rustavi ori") is a Georgian free-to-air television channel based in Tbilisi, that was founded in 1994 in the town of Rustavi (hence its name).

It is an associate member of the European Broadcasting Union. Its news service has bureaus and regional reporters in major Georgian cities (Kutaisi, Batumi, Gori, Poti, Zugdidi), as well as the permanent correspondents in Washington D.C., Brussels and Moscow. The independence of the channel was questioned recently, with many suggesting that it was biased in favor of the former ruling party UNM.

History
It was formed in 1994 and had been in a strong opposition to Eduard Shevardnadze’s government since then. The channel shut down due to allegedly losing its license a year later. The Georgian authorities made several attempts to shut R2 down. Giorgi Sanaia, Georgia’s most popular TV journalist, who worked for R2, was murdered in July 2001. It has been considered by many as a political murder related to his programme "Night Courier" and investigations of allegations of official corruption. In October 2001, the security police raid on the R2 office resulted in public anger and subsequent mass street demonstrations against the government's pressure on independent media forced Eduard Shevardnadze to fire his entire cabinet. On 15 March 2003, to coincide with the launch of its sister channel Imedi TV, Rustavi 2 introduced a new logo which consists of a zig-zagged abstract 2-numeral that is coloured bronze and are made up of gradient effects. Rustavi 2 was the main media source used as a tribune by the opposition leaders during the Rose Revolution in November 2003. On 25 December 2009, to celebrate its 15th anniversary, Rustavi 2 adopted a new logo during its Christmas special.

On December 14, 2012, Nika Gvaramia was appointed as the general director of the channel. On July 18, 2019, he was replaced by Paata Salia, who is the lawyer of Kibar Khalvashi, current owner of the channel.

Kurieri (Courier)
The news program Courier has aired since the foundation of Rustavi 2 and has become one of the most successful news programs in Georgia.

The daytime news was anchored by Ana Kinkladze, Keti Kvachantiradze and Natia Goksadze. Diana Jojua and Zaal Udumashvili anchored the evening news at 18:00 and 21:00, including sports with Dimitri Oboladze. David Kikalishvili presents "P.S." every Sunday at 21:00.

Business Courier
From 2006 new television season Rustavi 2 airs Business Courier. The program offers in-depth reporting and critical analysis of major business issues today with an emphasis on current events, business development, market outlooks, and emerging opportunities.

P.S.
P.S. is a weekly analytical and educational summarizing program, which focuses on politics, economics and social problems; the project also covers topical cultural issues. P.S. often reports on various international events related to Georgia. The program is anchored by Giorgi Gabunia.

Ownership
Rustavi 2 was originally owned by Erosi Kitsmarishvili, David Dvali, Jarji Akimidze and Nika Tabatadze. In July 2004, 90% of the company's shares were bought by the Batumi-based businessman Kibar Khalvashi, who was forced by then president Mikheil Saakashvili to sell the company, in January 2006, to David Bezhuashvili, member of the Parliament of Georgia and brother of Georgia's Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili. In mid-2006 Rustavi 2, the television company Mze TV and radio station Pirveli Stereo merged into a holding which is currently owned by the Georgian Industrial Group (GIG) and GeoMedia Group. GIG, which owns a 45% share of both stations, is a large company with diversified business interests ranging from coal mining and energy to travel. Davit Bezhuashvili, is a founding member of the group. The GeoMedia group is a relatively obscure company registered in the Marshall Islands.

On 2 March 2017, the Supreme Court of Georgia declared that the owners of the company were Kibar Khalvashi (60% shares) and Panorama Ltd. (40% shares). On March 3, the company submitted an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which, in its turn, on 4 March 2017 suspended the Supreme Court decision until 8 March and requested additional documentation. On July 18, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights found no violation by the Georgian courts in the Rustavi 2 case which lifted the suspension mechanism, thus returning the company to its owner, Kibar Khalvashi.

Perception of Bias
From February 2012 - August 2014, the National Democratic Institute conducted polls which included a question about which media organizations represented the interest of which political factions. A plurality of respondents in each case believed that Rustavi 2 represented the United National Movement (or, in the case of the February 2012 poll, the government, which was at the time controlled by the UNM). The results of the polls which asked this question is summarized below.

According to Rustavi 2 statement on Self-regulation, an interested person who believes that "Rustavi 2" has violated any ethical standards established by the "Code of Conduct of Broadcasters" and his rights, can appeal to the broadcaster with a complaint and demand a response.

title: Rustavi 2


text:
East Kirkby

East Kirkby is a village and civil parish in the East Lindsey district of Lincolnshire, England. It is situated 7 mi south-east from Horncastle, and on the A155 road.

East Kirkby 13th century Grade II* listed Anglican parish church is dedicated to St Nicholas. The church tower and nave arcades are of Decorated style, and the chancel screen, Perpendicular. In the south aisle is a 14th-century slab to Sir Robert Sylkestone (d. 1347), founder of the chantry.

A Wesleyan chapel was established in 1862. East Kirkby was the birthplace of Thomas Goodrich, or Goodricke, (1494–1554). Goodrich was Bishop of Ely (1533–54) and Lord High Chancellor of England from 1551.

East Kirkby has a disused 1820 Grade II listed tower mill. The village's public house is the Red Lion on Fen Lane.

The Prime Meridian passes just to the east of East Kirkby through the former RAF East Kirkby airfield, which has a meridian marker. The airfield was a Second World War Royal Air Force station, part of which now houses the Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre.

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

title: East Kirkby


text:
1991 in games

This page lists board and card games, wargames, miniatures games, and tabletop role-playing games published in 1991. For video games, see 1991 in video gaming.

Games Released or Invented in 1991
• Advanced Civilization

• Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game

• Car Wars: The Card Game

• Cosmic Encounter (Mayfair Games version, originally released in 1977 by Eon Games)

• Dark Conspiracy (role-playing game)

• Drunter und Drüber

• Falsies

• Formula Dé

• Greyhawk Wars

• HeroQuest Kellar's Keep (expansion)

• HeroQuest Return of the Witch Lord (expansion)

• History of the World

• Icehouse

• Midway

• Millennium's End (role-playing game)

• MindTrap

• More Dirty Minds

• Nightmare (later renamed Atmosfear)

• Outpost

• Rave

• Reich Star (role-playing game)

• Set

• Space Fleet

• Tales from the Floating Vagabond (role-playing game)

• Tantrix

• Tichu

• Time Lord (role-playing game)

• Ultra Marines

• Vampire: The Masquerade

Game awards given in 1991

 * Spiel des Jahres: Drunter und Drüber
 * Deutscher Spiele Preis: Master Labyrinth
 * Origins Awards:
 * Best Roleplaying Rules: Vampire: The Masquerade
 * Best Pre-20th Century Boardgame: Blackbeard
 * Best Modern-day Boardgame: East Front
 * Best Fantasy or Science Fiction Boardgame: Cosmic Encounter
 * Best Roleplaying Supplement: GURPS Time Travel
 * Best Roleplaying Adventure: Horror on the Orient Express (for Call of Cthulhu)
 * Games: Trumpet

Significant games-related events in 1991

 * White Wolf, Inc. founded.

title: 1991 in games


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Later On

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 13:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Later On
What is notable about this album? Brookie 18:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep. Album. Xezbeth  19:00, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, unless it's self-published or a mere collection of downloadable MP3s, the fact that an album has been released by the music industry is somewhat notable. I've edited out the review as it's POV, and the description of the cover as it's displayed in the picture. Keep, btw. Radiant! 21:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. CJCurrie 21:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Radiant! --Neigel von Teighen 21:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, released on his own record label, not notable - 390 Google hits. Megan1967 01:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This album is 1 of 39 others by the same artist. An artist with 39 albums is quite notable. Longhair 02:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has an allmusic.com entry and they give it 3 out of 5 stars.  This is the first I've heard of this artist, but he appears to be very notable from what I've read on allmusic.com.  Gamaliel 02:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable album by a notable artist. Tuf-Kat 04:40, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Esk Pike

Esk Pike is a fell in the English Lake District, one of the cirque of hills forming the head of Eskdale.

Topography
The Southern Fells include the highest ground in England, a horseshoe which begins with Scafell and Scafell Pike in the west and then curves around the north of Upper Eskdale to take in Great End, Esk Pike, Bow Fell and Crinkle Crags. As the name suggests, Esk Pike stands at the head of the valley, although it is not the highest of these fells.

To the north-west of Esk Pike is the depression of Esk Hause, a broad saddle carrying a number of important paths. The ‘true’ Esk Hause—so named by Alfred Wainwright in his influential Pictorial Guide to the Lakeland Fells—is the north–south route from Borrowdale to Eskdale. A lower path—the ‘false’ Hause—runs east–west from Langdale to Wasdale, passing a stone windshelter. There are also paths climbing to the summits of Esk Pike and Allen Crags, together with the popular Calf Cove route to Scafell Pike, all contributing to make Esk Hause a confusing place in mist. The source of the main branch of the Esk flows south from the Hause, while to the north the topography is more complex. Allen Crags stands adrift from the main ridge, with the valleys of Langstrath and Grains Gill falling on either side. These combine some miles downstream to form the River Derwent, flowing through Borrowdale to Derwentwater and Keswick.

South-east of the summit of Esk Pike is Ore Gap, the col separating it from Bow Fell. The soil here is red due to haematite, and climbing lore suggests that magnetic compasses cannot be trusted in this locality. North of the gap is Angle Tarn, a feeder of the Langstrath. This round tarn occupies a corrie beneath Hanging Knotts, small trout lurking in its 50 foot depths.

Southward from the summit, Esk Pike throws out a long descending ridge into the uninhabited fastness of Upper Eskdale. This divides the Esk from its major upper tributary, Lingcove Beck, which has its beginnings at Ore Gap. 2 miles in length, this ridge falls over a series of craggy steps to the confluence of the two streams at Lingcove Bridge. An old Packhorse Bridge, this is a focal point for those approaching from the south, particularly when the Esk is in spate. The south ridge has a number of subsidiary tops which are recognised by some guidebooks, the principal summits being Pike de Bield 2657 ft, Scar Lathing 1440 ft and Throstlehow Crag 1325 ft. Scar Lathing is particularly impressive, presenting sheer cliffs above a bend in the Esk. Although of minor significance Pianet Knott on the eastern side of the ridge also has a very striking appearance from lower down the valley.

Geology
Laminated volcaniclastic claystones and siltstones of the Esk Pike Formation form the upper reaches, crossed by an intrusion of andesite and hybridized andesite porphyry.

Summit
The summit area is extremely stony, striking pale rocks being much in evidence. A series of steps rise up from Ore Gap whilst the approach from Esk Hause is rough and eroded. A small cairn on the highest craggy outcrop marks the highest point. Esk Pike's central position above Eskdale gives it glorious views of the Scafells, with the Eastern and Northern Fells also forming a fine panorama. Derwentwater and a section of Windermere complete the scene. A little to the south, Pike de Bield provides an intimate view of the upper Esk.

Ascents
Being far from any roads, all ascents of Esk Pike involve considerable distance by Cumbrian standards. From Brotherilkeld on the Eskdale road the climber can choose between Ore Gap, Esk Hause and the south ridge, all of these options being around 5+1/2 mile. Borrowdale gives a choice of starting points, either making for Esk Hause from Seathwaite, or Ore Gap from Stonethwaite. Access is also possible from Great Langdale, ascending Rossett Gill from the Old Hotel. Many walkers will reach the summit indirectly having climbed Bow Fell first via the Band, or perhaps climbed from Borrowdale over Glaramara and Allen Crags.

title: Esk Pike


text:
Tippi Degré

Tippi Benjamine Okanti Degré (born June 4, 1990) is a French woman best known for spending her youth in Namibia among wild animals and the local tribes. In 1997, she was the protagonist of Le Monde selon Tippi, filmed in Namibia and Botswana. When she was 10, Degré wrote Tippi My Book of Africa. In 2002–03, she was the presenter of Around the World with Tippi, six wildlife and environmental TV documentaries.

Biography
Tippi Degré was born in Windhoek, Namibia, on June 4, 1990, to wildlife photographer-filmmaker parents and was raised in the bush for the first ten years of her life in Southern Africa. She was named after the American actress Tippi Hedren as well as friend of her parents Gert Benjamin Jordaan, a guide they knew in Namibia at the time of Tippi's birth. During her childhood in Namibia, Degré befriended animals she lived among including a 28-year old elephant Abu, a leopard nicknamed J&B, lions, giraffes, a banded mongoose, an ostrich, meerkats, a cheetah, a caracal, snakes, a giant bullfrog and chameleons. In addition, she also got along with the local Indigenous peoples and dressed like them.

In 2000, Degré wrote the novel Tippi - My Book of Africa, based on her life in Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Madagascar where she lived among wild animals and with tribes people, the San Bushmen and the Himbas.

In 2001, she was named the Godmother of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) with the French actor, producer and director Jacques Perrin. From 2002 to 2003, Degré presented six wildlife and environmental TV documentaries for the Discovery Channel.

A documentary film on her experiences, Le Monde Selon Tippi ("The World According to Tippi") was released in 1997. Around the World with Tippi was released in 2004, directed by Jeanne Mascolo de Filippis.

Degré studied cinema and audiovisuals in France. Active in conservation and in the documentary film industry, she is a speaker and is currently the director of "El Petit FICMA," the children's section of the FICMA International Environmental Film Festival (Barcelona).

title: Tippi Degré


text:
Talk:Principle of relativity

The POR Description is fundamentally wrong
The fundamental introduction is, essentially, wrong. It confuses principles of mathematical form with principles of physics. The POR is a *physical* principle not a mathematical principle. Unfortunately, the literature consistently conflates “physical laws of physics” with “mathematical equations of physics”. The POR refers to the actual physical behaviour of real physical objects. It is assumed to be valid even if the equations themselves describing the behaviour didn’t exist. “Laws of physics” refers to actual physical behaviour, not the equations. Unfortunately Einstein was confused on “The Principle of Covariance” and the POR, and this confusion has fuelled the misunderstanding, despite it well accepted after the fact that Einstein was mistaken on this point. It’s a mathematically fact that all theories of physics may be written “Covariantly”, that is, independent of coordinate system, irrespective of whether the physical system itself behaves independently of motion. Thus the current lead in description of "the laws of physics have the same form..." says, essentially, nothing physically. The bit about "...admissible frames of reference…" is equally meaningless as “admissible” is not even defined.

It is my view that the introduction should be replaced with something along the lines of the below. The idea being to state what the POR really is, and how it is commonly misrepresented. I will leave this here to gauge response from other editors. Kevin aylward (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 * In Physics, the Principle Of Relativity (POR) is the principle that the laws of physics are independent of uniform (inertial) motion. That is, the physical relations between objects are not effected by any joint motion of those objects.
 * The principle is a real physical principle, relating to real physical processes. However, it should be noted that the POR is often incorrectly stated by way of reference to general properties of mathematics and mathematical forms, which may also be true even if the POR itself was false. It should also be noted that the POR is often misunderstood with regard to reference frames and coordinate systems. Physical processes are inherently independent of coordinate systems because coordinate systems are mathematically only labelling constructions designed to be so independent. However, there is no a prior reason why physical processes should be independent of inertial reference frames. The POR expresses this last point Kevin aylward (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
I have replaced the existing article with a new article. I wanted to emphasize how special relativity restored relativity in physics. I also wanted to emphasive that observation is the basis of physics.

There is a widespread misconception that general relativity extends the concept of relativity to accelerated motion. Einstein certainly hoped to achieve that, and at first he believed that general relativity had achieved that, but after correspondences with the astronomer Willem de Sitter, and the mathematicians Herman Weyl and Felix Klein, Einstein agreed that it is unclear whether the theory of general relativity does imply Mach's principle, contrary to what Einstein had hoped. In later years, Einstein formulated the principle of equivalence in a more restricted form than at first. External link to 146 Kb PDF document: The Einstein-De Sitter debate --Cleon Teunissen 19:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THREE principles
Two were stated as essential by Einstein, " These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory " reference
 * http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

and then he added his personal POV which is "we establish by definition that the ``time required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time it requires to travel from B to A." which is the basis of his derivation of the cuckoo transformations. (same reference). Claims of one principle only are WP:NPOV violations and WP:OR violations, the average reader should not be mislead. Der alte Hexenmeister 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass-energy versus Gravity
Within the section on General Relativity, you state the following:

"Gravity alters the rate of progression of time" and "The deformation of space-time due to gravity ..."

IMHO, 'Gravity' in the above statements should be replaced with 'mass-energy'. In other words, gravity IS deformation of spacetime due to mass-energy. Alfred Centauri 12:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you have a good point there. I've done some editing.
 * Besides that, I'm not sure whether an article on the principle of relativity should mention the theory of general relativity at all. The principle of relativity refers to the principle of relativity of inertial motion. the discussion of GR in the article is so brief that I wonder whether it is doing any good. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 16:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Principle of Relativity: range of applicability
I think that the statement that "The principle of relativity refers to the principle of relativity of inertial motion." is an interpretation or a judgement, rather than a definition.

Literally, the principle of relativity is the principle that things are, well, relative. How far that principle can be legitimately be applied (and to what things) is a question that has occupied physicists for centuries.

In Principia, Isaac Newton outlined a model in which inertial motion was relative and "accelerated" or "rotational" motion was not. But a powerful contemporary, Bishop Berkeley, objected on the grounds that Newton's model applied the principle of relativity insufficently broadly. According to Berkeley, the inclusion of arbitrary absolute properties weakened the theory - to Berkeley, there should be no absolutes but God. Although he phrased it in religious terms, his objection was basically the Occam's Razor argument against the inclusion of unnecessary entities, making everything relative produces a more self-contained model. Newton seems to have been aware of the problem and in an odd passage in Principia, seems to talk about the ability of revolving shells of matter to make enclosed objects partake of their revolution. This sounds very much like an early description of the principle of relativity applied to rotation, and would nowadays be described as a Machian idea, or perhaps as a description of frame-dragging under general relativity. It's difficult to see how this fits with the rest of Principia, so perhaps Newton included the section to pacify Berkeley.

Ernst Mach was a high-profile proponent of the principle of relativity in its most general physical sense, and strongly influenced Einstein. According to Mach, "relativistic" physics meant fully relativistic physics, in which acceleration and rotational effects were due to the interplay of an object with background environmental matter. Without that background reference, acceleration or rotation would not be physical, and if there was no physical cause, there should be no physical effect. If we claimed that the entire universe was rotating, there should be no resulting forces, because there would be nothing physical for the rotation to exist relative to, and the supposed rotation would be a purely mathematical notion with no physical consequences. In his book "Science and Mechanics", Mach explicitly defines a "relativist" as being someone who subscribes to this much more general principle of relativity. When Einstein produced his "special" or "restricted" theory of relativity (aka "Special Relativity" or "SR"), Mach reputedly did not like it at all -- by his standards, it was probably not worthy to be referred to as theory of relativity, although Mach himself did not seem to have anything more constructive to offer.

Einstein then went on to produce his "General Theory of Relativity", which was intended to at last be a fully compliant Machian theory, and to begin with, descriptions of "General Relativity", or "GR" did assume that the theory was a fully successful implementation of the general principle of relativity (see e.g. the content of Einstein's 1921 Princeton lectures, reprinted in "The Meaning of Relativity"). In later years this claimed compliance had to be downgraded somewhat, the theory had allegedly been found to allow rotating-universe solutions, and the fact that Einstein had designed it to reduce to SR meant that certain non-Machian assumptions built into SR were inherited, at least in part, by the general theory. A paper by the Harwell research group described an experiment where they had successfully measured time dilation in centrifuged material, and the paper set the cat amongst the pigeons by mentioning that the same basic result could be predicted either by applying the principle of equivalence and calculating the effect as gravitational time dilation, or by applying special relativity and calculating the effect as the result of velocity-based time-dilation. Unfortunately, although both calcualtions were adequate to explain the result, they were found to be geometrically incompatible, so at least one had to be wrong, and since invalidating SR would also invalidate the current version of the general theory, it was decided that the least worst option was to retain SR and restrict the accepted domain of validity of the equivalence principle only to situations where it did not conflict with accepted SR work. Where Einstein had originally said that acceleration and gravitational effects were wholly equivalent and interchangeable, later writers preferred to say that this had only been an approximate relationship rather than a law, that Einstein hadn't meant it literally, and that of course, one could in practice distinguish between acceleration and gravity.

Towards the end of his life, writing in Scientific American (April 1950), Einstein wrote that he no longer believed that it was correct to use the special theory as a foundation or building block for more advanced gravitational theory. A fully general theory, he said, ought in his opinion to be designed to conform to the general principle from the ground up without these sorts of compromises. Unfortunately he died without being able to produce a third, all-encompassing theory of relativity, and to this day, the true status of Mach's Principle (or, the idea that the general principle of relativity should be truly general) still generates controversy.

--ErkDemon 03:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pinciple of relativity: range of applicability (2)
A physicist has no choice but to follow where the evidence leads him. We are faced with several layers of counterintuitiveness.

We have that there is, as far as we can tell from measurements, unconditional relativity of position in space. We have unconditional relativity of the first derivative of place: relativity of inertial motion in space. We do not have relativity of the second derivative of position in space: acceleration is locally detectable; it is possible to measure acceleration with respect to local space. (Generally speaking, all motion is motion in space-time, of course)

I should explain why I use the distinction between global measurement and local measurement. An observer in a space-craft, moving inertially in space, can take measurement readings of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and thus he can infer his own velocity with respect to CMB. But that measurement is looking at someting that originated a very long time ago, very far away. If you apply the restriction that you are not allowed to look very far, then the finding is that what is detectable is relative velocity. It appears to an observer that only relative velocity can be used in any theory of physics.

Remarkably, acceleration with respect to the local inertial frame of reference is detectable, any accelerometer will tell you how hard you are accelerating with respect to the local inertial frame of reference. (I follow the convention of defining an 'inertial frame of reference' as follows: a coordinate system that is co-moving with a free-falling test mass.)

The relativistic theory of gravitation describes that space-time is not a fixed background. As John Wheeler put it ultra-condensed: "Matter/energy is telling space-time how to curve, space-time curvature is telling matter how to move."

Gravitational curvature of space-time meant that physicists had to retreat from the position of special relativity. The Minkowski space-time of special relativity is quite different from newtonian absolute space, of course, but a form of absoluteness is still present: any inertial frame of reference extends to infinity. Minkowski space-time is not a Euclidian space, but it shares with Euclidian space that it is a geometrically straight space.  Gravitationally curved space-time has the property that inertial frames of reference at different locations can (depending on the circumstances) be accelerating with respect to each other.

So in our solar system we are surrounded with examples of local inertial frames of reference that are accelerating with respect to each other. The Earth, in its orbit around the Sun, is following a geodesic, so the frame of reference that is co-moving with the center of mass of the Earth is a local inertial frame of reference. A satellite, say a space station, orbits its own primary, the space station is orbiting Earth. Etc. etc.

Interestingly, there are very few examples of local inertial frames that are rotating with respect to each other. General relativity does predict the phenomenon of frame dragging but it is an exceedingly small effect, only significant in the vicinity of very very heavy, very rapidly spinning celestial bodies, such is rapidly spinning neutron starts.

Rotation is absolute
Rotation is absolute, but not in the sense that Newton described. The difference between velocity and rotation is that while you cannot measure your own velocity with respect to space itself, you can measure your own rotation with respect to your local space. (As noted, frame dragging implies the possibility of local rotational motion of space-time, but frame dragging is exceedingly insignificant.)

It is possible that Newton reasoned as follows: "If I assume that acceleration is absolute, and it appears that observation compels me to make that assumption, then there must be an underlying reference. If the second derivative of position, acceleration, has a reference, then so must the first derivative: velocity, even while it remains hidden from view.

Others have argued: if velocity is relative, then there can be no background reference at all, implying that acceleration cannot possibly be absolute. Then the task for the physicist is to find a theory that explains why acceleration appears to be absolute, while being relative all along.

It seems to me that Nature is even more counterintuitive than anybody expected. To my knowledge, physicists have, for the time being, come to the conclusion that position and velocity are unconditionally relative, but that acceleration/rotation is absolute.

 * Hmm, it seems to me that most physicists don't really try to understand Nature but instead positivistically interpret the laws of motion as if they describe not observations but reality itself... (but then, how many physicists are skilled in philosophy?) Harald88 21:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Einstein attempted to implement what he coined as Mach's principle.  What if a theory can be formulated in which there is full reciprocity of rotational transformations? If you have a hollow spherical shell of solar system size that is rotating, will that result in frame dragging effects that result in the inside of the rotating sphere in a space-time deformation that exactly matches the physics of rotation? That is: if inside the hollow spherical rotating shell a planet resides, will observers on that planet be able to figure out whether the planet they are on is rotating, or that some hollow sphere is rotating around them. To my knowledge the general theory of relativity does not satisfy this form of Mach's principle, you can tell the difference, by way of measurement. Hence the assertion: velocity is relative, acceleration/rotation is absolute.

What we see in our universe is relativity of inertial motion. As far as we can tell with our present state of knowledge, Nature has not seen fit to also have the property of relativity of all motion, including accelerational/rotational motion.

Well, look at it this way. If nature would have fitted in the property of relativity of all motion then the universe would not be coherent, that is, united as or forming a whole. Hansholler (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Inertia
So what can inertia be? If space is a physical entity, putting up resistance against acceleration, how then can velocity be without any resistance?

Interestingly, there is a physical parallel between inertia and the phenomenon of inductance. Imagine a current circuit with in it a self-inducting coil. Let the current curcuit be superconducting. This superconducting current circuit will have zero resistance to current. However, when an electric potential is applied to change the current strength, then the change in current strenght elicits induction in the coil and that elicits a counterforce that opposes that change in current strenght.

That does not explain inertia, it just provides an example of a system that offers zero resistance to the first derivative, but that does put up resistance against the second derivative: change of current strenght is opposed.  --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 11:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, it partially explains inertia: for the selfinduction of an accelerating electron corresponds to its relativistic inertia increase. You can't regard these two things seperately for then you'd have to add the effects, and that would be erroneous. And funny enough, one century ago this was all well understood, and my 25 year old textbook explains how the electron's magnetic field corresponds to the increase of "relativistic mass" (which is currently out of fashion, and with that also that insight). Harald88 21:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Principle of relativity: range of applicability (3)

 * I think that the statement that
 * "The principle of relativity refers to the principle of relativity of inertial motion."
 * is an interpretation or a judgement, rather than a definition. Literally, the principle of relativity is the principle that things are, well, relative. How far that principle can be legitimately be applied (and to what things) is a question that has occupied physicists for centuries. --ErkDemon 03:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You made a valid point: I suppose the following formulation could have been used:
 * "The current principle of relativity as used in physics entails a principle of relativity of inertial motion."

Here is how I use the expression 'principle of relativity':  The content that the scientific community attributes to the 'principle of relativity' changes over time. In that sense there is a succession of principles of relativity, starting with the proposal of Galileo Galilei. Invariably the Principle of relativity and the physics of kinematics are completely intertwined. I find it hard to separate them conceptually.

The newtonian principle of relativity involves the following two assertions:  (G1) When two observers are moving inertially with respect to each other, and they are watching the same events, then they will percieve the distances, velocities etc differently, but in the end they will infer from their observations the same body of laws of kinematics. (That is pretty amazing, but that is the way it is.)

(G2) When you want to transform measurements taken as seen from one inertial frame to another frame you perform vector additions; velocity addition is always straighforward vector addition.

(The G's in (G1) and (G2) stand for Galilei, for newtonian relativity is by convention called Galilean relativity.)

Interestingly, (G1) does not need to be altered in any way for special relativity, it is exclusively (G2), the assertion about how to transform measurement data from one inertial frame to another that was modified in the transition from Newtonian kinematics to special relativity.

So if there is such a thing as the  principle of relativity, I would say (G1) --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 14:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theory of relativity
Why are we including the theory of relativity on this page? I may cause confusion to the reader.--Light current 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not? The special theory of relativity is based on the principle of relativity; the general theory was an extension of it (but that extension failed). The text on GRT desperately needs rephrasing, that's for sure; nearly everything about gravitation should be removed, it's not relevant and indeed confusing. Harald88 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep thing as simple as possible please!--Light current 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It will confuse people.
 * We have a pages dedicated to the special and general theory of relativity
 * Principle of relativity does not depend on relativity

 * It is essential to distinguish Einstein's general principle of relativity from the standard PoR, which he later called the special principle of relativity, exactly to reduce existing confusion even among scientists. See also the first discussion by Cleonis on this page. Of course, if you find a way to make this disambugation more transparent, that would be good. Harald88 12:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

merge with theory of relativity?
[- title inserted Harald88 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)]

I suggest that we redirect principle of relativity to theory of relativity. The two articles are trying to do exactly the same thing, in the same way; they link to mostly the same sections. The only exception are 1) Indian proto-relativity which could easily be added as a link in theory of relativity and 2) general covariance which needs a complete rewrite anyway. Any thoughts? --Michael C. Price talk 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm... Yes I agree that they are somewhat double, but in view of the above discussions (which somewhat changed my mind), I suggest rather the opposite: to copy-paste whatever is better from Theory of relativity, and to delete that article. IMO the Principle of relativity article should be reworked so that it discusses more properly the different proposed principles of relativity (as distinct from the related theories). Harald88 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I have copied all the useful material from principle of relativity (which it too long, IMO) to theory of relativity. Are you suggesting a straight cut&paste from TOR -> POR?  That's sounds OK to me.  I'm not sure if I quite follow what content changes you envisage, but whatever they are they will be easier to implement when the duplicate page(s) are removed.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean (& are the changes I've been makiing): the principles behind the various theories that we want to highlight at the summary level. --Michael C. Price talk 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)]

 * In my opinion, we should keep the article Principle of relativity, which is a well-defined concept, and turn the article Theory of relativity into a disambiguation page with links to special relativity and general relativity. (I think it's the same thing as suggested by Harald88 above.) Yevgeny Kats 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Michael C. Price talk 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree. I think that the business on "Indian relativity" and "Galilean relativity" need to be removed from theory of relativity, as both are statements of the principle, and not of Einstein's theories which is what is really being refered to.  However, I like the current thumbnail sketches of EInstein's theories.  They do not need to be expanded, but neither do I feel that they should be removed.
 * For this page, we need to establish what the "special principle of relativity" and the "general principle of relativity" are. Note that Galileo essentially stated the special principle in his work.   Also note that the difference between Newtonian physics and special relativity is not in the principle of relativity but instead in what that principle is asked to act with.  In Newton's mechanics, the added presmises are an absolite space and and absolute time with universal simultaneity.  In Einstein's theory, the constancy of the speed of light (given synchronized clocks and standard rods) is the added premise. --EMS | Talk 05:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Indian relativity" and "Galilean relativity" will be removed from theory of relativity when it is turned into a disambigutaion page as the changes suggested above are implemented. I like the addition of a mention of Newtonian physics.  I'm going to make the changes and then we can continue to improve the content. --Michael C. Price talk 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Changes done as discussed. --Michael C. Price talk 05:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian Relativity
I remoeved a staement about an 'Ancient Indian theory of relativity' I doubt that any 'ancient Indian theory' proposed exactly what is meant here by principle of relativity. If we could find out what that word meant, then we could add it as a footnote to the article. DJ Clayworth 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * And I removed it again. The link provided by the author (namely, http://www.crystalinks.com/indiascience.html) does not say anything substantial at all about "Indian Relativity". If you do not know what exactly this 'Indian relativity theory' stated then how can you deduce that it is relevant to the topic of our article? The article is about physics, no need to quote here every ancient sage who used the word 'relative' once or twice in his writings.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.22.14 (talk • contribs)

 * See also Gravitation for a similar discussion of a dubious invented in India claim. See these claims regarding alleged ancient Indian helicopters and such like, which rather speaks for itself.---CH 03:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This page needs a rewrite
Please note that the principle of relativity is not the theory of relativity. As-is, this page could be a redirect to theory of relativity. Instead it should have sections entitled "special principle of relativity" and "general principle of relativity", and talk about what those are. Kindly note that the special principle is Galileo's original principle of relativity. Talk of electromagnetism and the speed of light should be kept to a minimum, and at best be part of a quick reference to special relativity.

The question to be answered here is "what is the principle of relativity?". Instead, this is a discussion of the theory of relativity. That needs to be corrected. --EMS | Talk 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is a discussion of how the theories of relativity derive from the principle of relativity, as defined in the opening sentence as:
 * The principle of relativity, refers to Galilean relativity and its subsequent application to Albert Einstein's special relativity and general relativity.
 * You seem to wish for the principle of relativity page to eschew all 20th century developments. Such a page would then be called Galilean relativity - and it already exists.  It is the theory of relativity that needs a rewrite or new title -- the title is singular but the content is plural.  --Michael C. Price talk 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You are confusing the principle and the theory. You need to get the principles stright, and then do please mention their connections to the theories.  However, you do not need to talk about the theories themselves.  I do see the theory of relativity page needing some expansion, but only to list major consequences.  This page needs to be refocussed of Galileo's principle and Einstein's generalization of it for general relativity. --EMS | Talk 17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Our viewpoint and motivation seem identical, we are just disagreeing over the means. I see the need to distinguish between the principle and the theories, and for the principle to focus on Galileo; this page needs to split the Galilean section in two (which I'll attend to).  But there is a natural overlap between the theories of R (pl) and the principle of R (sing), since all the theories have the same principle in common.  However theory of relativity (sing) should just disambiguate onto single theory and not talk about the relationship between theories.  I am still unhappy with the duplication between the two pages as they stand; it will lead to endless rewrite confusion.  --Michael C. Price talk 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I wholeheartedly agree with your concern about duplication. My point is that the theory of relativity page does what I want it to do, and there is no need for this page to duplicate that.  This page needs to focus more closely to the principles.  i. e. -
 * The speical principle of relativity - The laws of physics are the same for any set of observers in uniform linear motion with respect to each other.
 * The general principle of relativity - The laws of physics are the same for all observers independent of their state of motion.
 * This article does not even state the general principle. Instead of a discussion of the theories of relativity, what is needed here is a discussion of the principle and their relationship to the theories.  Once you focus in, you will find that you are looking at the foundations of relativity, and are paying much less attention to what has been built on that foundation. --EMS | Talk 04:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the way you have stated the general principle is confused, since the general principle is more than just general covariance. This article states that GR exhibits a local Lorentz covariance, which is a stronger statement than just general covariance since it implies general covariance (all observers see same physics) and that the local physics they see is that of SR (i.e. Lorentzian).  This muddleness extends through a number of GR article.  --Michael C. Price talk 09:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

erroneous statement about Maxwell's equations
Some anon removed "since the invariance of the speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's equations of [[electromagnetism]".

It is doubtful that any quality publication claims that Maxwell's equations alone suffice.

Maxwell himself used his equations and publicly disagreed with that claim by proposing the MMX (his equations were defined relative to the ether). Maxwell's equations together with the PoR do have that consequence however. It may also be derived form combining his equations with the electromagnetic theory of matter. Harald88 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I have restored the claim, adding the PoR requirement, which makes the statement correct. It also means that it leads naturally onto the next paragraph.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Fine to me Harald88 19:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley's General Relativity
What about the general assertion that underlies all relativity? This is equivalent to Berkeley's Idealism. It is the statement that all objects exist as they are only in relation to an observing subject. No object exists as it is in itself, apart from an observing subject.Lestrade 18:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

General principle of relativity
The general principle of relativity states that physical laws should be the same in all reference frames -- inertial or non-inertial. An accelerated charged particle might emit synchrotron radiation, though a particle at rest doesn't. If we consider now the same accelerated charged particle in it's non-inertial rest frame, it emits radiation at rest.

Indeed physical laws are clearly not the same in non-inertial reference frames. As an example Newton's laws of motion are not valid in non-inertial reference frames. Therefore, we can decide, whether the Earth is rotating or not as demonstrated by the Foucault pendulum. I conclude, general relativity is proven to be ridiculous or The Emperor's New Clothes. 84.59.51.81 08:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Please see Talk_page_guidelines and in particular "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues". Alfred Centauri 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious Blunder and Omission In Special Relativity Section--Failure to mention Poincare
The special relativity section fails to attribute to Poincare the credit for formulating the principle of relativity. The article also attributes to Plank the credit for this, but is unclear. Poincare was first to use the term principle of relativity not Einstein or Plank. Other historical facts are garbled and confusing. No credit given to Lorentz for theorem of corresponding states as predecesor of Einstein's version of the principle. Historical information needs rewrite.71.251.178.128 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Here are my suggestions, anonymous:

 * (1) Sign up for an account so I don't have to call you anonymous
 * (2) Be bold, and make the corrective edits you believe are necessary - make sure to include authoritative references, please!
 * (3) Important: Make sure to read and absorb the following warning which is printed below the edit box:
 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
 * (4) Also Important: Make sure to read and absorb this:  Wikipedia is not a soapbox

 * Regards, Alfred Centauri 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says, "Einstein... discarded the notion of absolute time." and mentions 1905. Poincare said in 1898, "There is no absolute time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

 * Indeed, Poincare was the first one to formulate the modern PoR on record (that is, for all laws of nature). He should be cited. Harald88 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

erroneous statement
A statement to correct (if not soon corrected, I'll remove it):

Nonsense:

"Many physicists, including both Larmor and Lorentz, discarded the special principle of relativity in favor of a luminiferous aether -- a plenum that fills space and is a medium for electromagnetic radiation."

Fact: Lorentz tried to develop a theory that obeyed the PoR and achieved it (almost) in 1904. See also the book "The Principle of Relativity" by Einstein and Lorentz. I cite Lorentz: "Poincare has objected to the existing theory of electric and optical phenomena in moving bodies [...] It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I already sought to frame a theory of this kind"

Harald88 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I now guess what may have been meant, and I'll correct it accordingly. Harald88 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

History.
Uh. I think the history section might need to be, you know, rewritten? It only reads: Aristotle Newton Einstein Dbutler1986 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed. This makes no sense whatsoever. Borg Sphere (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

About new ideas
Relativity principle is a general topic. New ideas shoud be allowed to be incorporated here. Otherwise, here will be a dead field without any updates. Kylin.Ma (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 * New ideas are fine, but your self-promotion is not. Irrelevant promotional material removed from article. Vsmith (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the avoidance of self-promotion. So could you help me with that rather than I do it by myself? Thanks. Kylin.Ma (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 * If your work is published by a reliable source then you should provide that reference here for others working on this article to consider and possibly use. Your current approach of adding a new section here and to Simulated reality referenced to your own work is not acceptable. Please read conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. You are right. This article was written in 2005 and has been put into public domain 3 years ago. So in some sense, it's no longer something quite new. And it's also closely related to this topic. That's why a section is summarized here. Please think about its relevance and give your fair opinions. Thanks. Kylin.Ma (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Quoting from the purpose page of the "verifiable source":
 * "'The original and continued purpose of these pages is to present an assessment of special relativity. This purpose has since been expanded to include all aspects of science and philosophy. Readers who have opinions on the subjects are encouraged to participate. Please make use of the GSJ forum for any dialogues that may serve to highlight and explore the subjects covered on-site for the benefit of correspondents and other readers."
 * This alone defines it as a highly unreliable source, also known as a soapbox. So the article is irrelevant. DVdm (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect expression of general principle of relativity
The general principle of relativity states that "local laws of physics are the same in all coordinate systems". The current article is incorrect, because it does not state local laws, and because it confuses coordinate systems with reference frames. A reference frame is not a coordinate system. It is the physical matter from which a coordinate system may be empirically defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the Cosmic Microwave Background CMB
The article could use a section on the cosmic microwave background radiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

order of the timeline
Why is the time line out of order? Hansholler (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Assumption
The article speaks of Newton's using an assumption of absolute time. The article on Absolute time says Newton flatly stated that absolute time existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.121.229 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

not written for a general audience
can anyone tell me with a straight face that this is written for a general audience ? this is not General relativity was developed by Einstein in the years 1907 - 1915. General relativity postulates that the global Lorentz covariance of special relativity becomes a local Lorentz covariance in the presence of matter. The presence of matter "curves" spacetime, and this curvature affects the path of free particles (and even the path of light). General relativity uses the mathematics of differential geometry and tensors in order to describe gravitation as an effect of the geometry of spacetime. Einstein based this new theory on the general principle of relativity, and he named the theory after the underlying principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:8409:3056:A236:A59F (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A very unclear (possibly, erroneous) statement
It would be helpful if the authors of this article could clarify the following statement regarding the relativity principle and the principle of the independence of the speed of light (in vacuum) from the motion of the source:

"These two principles were reconciled with each other (in Einstein's treatment, though not in Poincaré's) by a re-examination of the fundamental meanings of space and time intervals." Why exactly are these principles not reconciled within Poincare's treatment?

 * I agree with this anonymous comment, and removed the parenthetical remark. Roger (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Principle of relativity


text:
Van Wijngaarden grammar

In computer science, a Van Wijngaarden grammar (also vW-grammar or W-grammar ) is a formalism for defining formal languages. The name derives from the formalism invented by Adriaan van Wijngaarden for the purpose of defining the ALGOL 68 programming language. The resulting specification remains its most notable application.

Van Wijngaarden grammars address the problem that context-free grammars cannot express agreement or reference, where two different parts of the sentence must agree with each other in some way. For example, the sentence "The birds was eating" is not Standard English because it fails to agree on number. A context-free grammar would parse "The birds was eating" and "The birds were eating" and "The bird was eating" in the same way. However, context-free grammars have the benefit of simplicity whereas van Wijngaarden grammars are considered highly complex.

Two levels
W-grammars are two-level grammars: they are defined by a pair of grammars, that operate on different levels:
 * the hypergrammar is an attribute grammar, i.e. a set of context-free grammar rules in which the nonterminals may have attributes; and
 * the metagrammar is a context-free grammar defining possible values for these attributes.

The set of strings generated by a W-grammar is defined by a two-stage process:
 * 1)  within each hyperrule, for each attribute that occurs in it, pick a value for it generated by the metagrammar; the result is a normal context-free grammar rule; do this in every possible way;
 * 2) use the resulting (possibly infinite) context-free grammar to generate strings in the normal way.

The consistent substitution used in the first step is the same as substitution in predicate logic, and actually supports logic programming; it corresponds to unification in Prolog, as noted by Alain Colmerauer.

W-grammars are Turing complete; hence, all decision problems regarding the languages they generate, such as are undecidable.
 * whether a W-grammar generates a given string
 * whether a W-grammar generates no strings at all

Curtailed variants, known as affix grammars, were developed, and applied in compiler construction and to the description of natural languages.

Definite logic programs, that is, logic programs that make no use of negation, can be viewed as a subclass of W-grammars.

Motivation and history
In the 1950s, attempts started to apply computers to the recognition, interpretation and translation of natural languages, such as English and Russian. This requires a machine-readable description of the phrase structure of sentences, that can be used to parse and interpret them, and to generate them. Context-free grammars, a concept from structural linguistics, were adopted for this purpose; their rules can express how sentences are recursively built out of parts of speech, such as noun phrases and verb phrases, and ultimately, words, such as nouns, verbs, and pronouns.

This work influenced the design and implementation of programming languages, most notably, of ALGOL 60, which introduced a syntax description in Backus–Naur form.

However, context-free rules cannot express agreement or reference (anaphora), where two different parts of the sentence must agree with each other in some way.

These can be readily expressed in W-grammars. (See example below.)

Programming languages have the analogous notions of typing and scoping. A compiler or interpreter for the language must recognize which uses of a variable belong together (refer to the same variable). This is typically subject to constraints such as:

 * A variable must be initialized before its value is used.
 * In strongly typed languages, each variable is assigned a type, and all uses of the variable must respect its type.
 * Often, its type must be declared explicitly, before use.

W-grammars are based on the idea of providing the nonterminal symbols of context-free grammars with attributes (or affixes) that pass information between the nodes of the parse tree, used to constrain the syntax and to specify the semantics.

This idea was well known at the time; e.g. Donald Knuth visited the ALGOL 68 design committee while developing his own version of it, attribute grammars.

By augmenting the syntax description with attributes, constraints like the above can be checked, ruling many invalid programs out at compile time. As Van Wijngaarden wrote in his preface: "My main objections were certain to me unnecessary restrictions and the definition of the syntax and semantics. Actually the syntax viewed in MR 75 produces a large number of programs, whereas I should prefer to have the subset of meaningful programs as large as possible, which requires a stricter syntax. [...] it soon became clear that some better tools than the Backus notation might be advantageous [...]. I developed a scheme [...] which enables the design of a language to carry much more information in the syntax than is normally carried."

Quite peculiar to W-grammars was their strict treatment of attributes as strings, defined by a context-free grammar, on which concatenation is the only possible operation; complex data structures and operations can be defined by pattern matching. (See example below.)

After their introduction in the 1968 ALGOL 68 "Final Report", W-grammars were widely considered as too powerful and unconstrained to be practical.

This was partly a consequence of the way in which they had been applied; the 1973 ALGOL 68 "Revised Report" contains a much more readable grammar, without modifying the W-grammar formalism itself.

Meanwhile, it became clear that W-grammars, when used in their full generality, are indeed too powerful for such practical purposes as serving as the input for a parser generator. They describe precisely all recursively enumerable languages, which makes parsing impossible in general: it is an undecidable problem to decide whether a given string can be generated by a given W-grammar.

Hence, their use must be seriously constrained when used for automatic parsing or translation. Restricted and modified variants of W-grammars were developed to address this, e.g.
 * Extended Affix Grammars (EAGs), applied to describe the grammars of natural language such as English and Spanish);
 * Q-systems, also applied to natural language processing;
 * the CDL series of languages, applied as compiler construction languages for programming languages.

After the 1970s, interest in the approach waned; occasionally, new studies are published.

Agreement in English grammar
In English, nouns, pronouns and verbs have attributes such as grammatical number, gender, and person, which must agree between subject, main verb, and pronouns referring to the subject:

are valid sentences; invalid are, for instance:
 * I wash myself.
 * She washes herself.
 * We wash ourselves.
 * *I washes ourselves.
 * *She wash himself.
 * *We wash herself.

Here, agreement serves to stress that both pronouns (e.g. I and myself) refer to the same person.

A context-free grammar to generate all such sentences:

::= wash | washes ::= myself | yourself | himself | herself | ourselves | yourselves | themselves

From sentence, we can generate all combinations:

I wash myself I wash yourself I wash himself [...] They wash yourselves They wash themselves

A W-grammar to generate only the valid sentences:

  > ::=   >  >   >

 1st> ::= I   2nd> ::= You ::= He  ::= She  1st>  ::= We  3rd> ::= They

::= wash ::= washes <verb plural <PERSON>> ::= wash

<object singular <GENDER> 1st> ::= myself <object singular <GENDER> 2nd> ::= yourself ::= himself ::= herself <object plural <GENDER> 1st>  ::= ourselves <object plural <GENDER> 2nd>  ::= yourselves <object plural <GENDER> 3rd>  ::= themselves

<NUMBER> ::== singular | plural <GENDER> ::== male | female <PERSON> ::== 1st | 2nd | 3rd

A standard non-context-free language
A well-known non-context-free language is
 * $$\{a^n b^n a^n | n \ge 1\}.$$

A two-level grammar for this language is the metagrammar
 * N ::= 1 | N1
 * X ::= a | b

together with grammar schema
 * Start ::= $$ \langle a^N \rangle\langle b^N \rangle\langle a^N \rangle $$
 * $$ \langle X^{N1} \rangle$$ ::= $$\langle X^N \rangle X $$
 * $$ \langle X^1 \rangle$$ ::= X

Requiring valid use of variables in ALGOL
The Revised Report on the Algorithmic Language Algol 60 defines a full context-free syntax for the language.

Assignments are defined as follows (section 4.2.1):

A can be (amongst other things) an, which in turn is defined as:

Examples (section 4.2.2):

s:=p[0]:=n:=n+1+s n:=n+1 A:=B/C-v-q×S S[v,k+2]:=3-arctan(sTIMESzeta) V:=Q>Y^Z

Expressions and assignments must be type checked: for instance,
 * in n:=n+1, n must be a number (integer or real);
 * in A:=B/C-v-q×S, all variables must be numbers;
 * in V:=Q>Y^Z, all variables must be of type Boolean.

The rules above distinguish between and <Boolean expression>, but they cannot verify that the same variable always has the same type.

This (non-context-free) requirement can be expressed in a W-grammar by annotating the rules with attributes that record, for each variable used or assigned to, its name and type.

This record can then be carried along to all places in the grammar where types need to be matched, and implement type checking.

Similarly, it can be used to checking initialization of variables before use, etcetera.

One may wonder how to create and manipulate such a data structure without explicit support in the formalism for data structures and operations on them. It can be done by using the metagrammar to define a string representation for the data structure and using pattern matching to define operations:

<left part with <TYPED> <NAME>> ::= <variable with <TYPED> <NAME>> := | <procedure identifier with <TYPED> <NAME>> := <left part list <TYPEMAP1>> ::= <left part with <TYPED> <NAME>> <where <TYPEMAP1> is <TYPED> <NAME> added to sorted <EMPTY>> | <left part list <TYPEMAP2>> <left part with <TYPED> <NAME>> <where <TYPEMAP1> is <TYPED> <NAME> added to sorted <TYPEMAP2>> <assignment statement <ASSIGNED TO> <USED>> ::= <left part list <ASSIGNED TO>> <arithmetic expression <USED>> | <left part list <ASSIGNED TO>> <Boolean expression <USED>> <where <TYPED> <NAME> is <TYPED> <NAME> added to sorted <EMPTY>> ::= <where <TYPEMAP1> is <TYPED1> <NAME1> added to sorted <TYPEMAP2>> ::= <where <TYPEMAP2> is <TYPED2> <NAME2> added to sorted <TYPEMAP3>> <where <NAME1> is lexicographically before <NAME2>> <where <TYPEMAP1> is <TYPED1> <NAME1> added to sorted <TYPEMAP2>> ::= <where <TYPEMAP2> is <TYPED2> <NAME2> added to sorted <TYPEMAP3>> <where <NAME2> is lexicographically before <NAME1>> <where <TYPEMAP3> is <TYPED1> <NAME1> added to sorted <TYPEMAP4>> <where <EMPTY> is lexicographically before <NAME1>> ::= <where <NAME1> is <LETTER OR DIGIT> followed by <NAME2>> <where <NAME1> is lexicographically before <NAME2>> ::= <where <NAME1> is <LETTER OR DIGIT> followed by <NAME3>> <where <NAME2> is <LETTER OR DIGIT> followed by <NAME4>> <where <NAME3> is lexicographically before <NAME4>> <where <NAME1> is lexicographically before <NAME2>> ::= <where <NAME1> is <LETTER OR DIGIT 1> followed by <NAME3>> <where <NAME2> is <LETTER OR DIGIT 2> followed by <NAME4>> <where <LETTER OR DIGIT 1> precedes+ <LETTER OR DIGIT 2> <where <LETTER OR DIGIT 1> precedes+ <LETTER OR DIGIT 2> ::= <where <LETTER OR DIGIT 1> precedes <LETTER OR DIGIT 2> <where <LETTER OR DIGIT 1> precedes+ <LETTER OR DIGIT 2> ::= <where <LETTER OR DIGIT 1> precedes+ <LETTER OR DIGIT 3> <where <LETTER OR DIGIT 3> precedes+ <LETTER OR DIGIT 2> :== :== [...] <TYPED>      ::== real | integer | Boolean <NAME>       ::== <LETTER> | <NAME> <LETTER> | <NAME> <DIGIT> <LETTER OR DIGIT> ::== <LETTER> | <DIGIT> <LETTER OR DIGIT 1> ::= <LETTER OR DIGIT> <LETTER OR DIGIT 2> ::= <LETTER OR DIGIT> <LETTER OR DIGIT 3> ::= <LETTER OR DIGIT> <LETTER>     ::== a | b | c | [...] <DIGIT>      ::== 0 | 1 | 2 | [...] <NAMES1>     ::== <NAMES> <NAMES2>     ::== <NAMES> <ASSIGNED TO> ::== <NAMES> <USED>       ::== <NAMES> <NAMES>      ::== <NAME> | <NAME> <NAMES> <EMPTY>      ::== <TYPEMAP>    ::== (<TYPED> <NAME>) <TYPEMAP> <TYPEMAP1>   ::== <TYPEMAP> <TYPEMAP2>   ::== <TYPEMAP> <TYPEMAP3>   ::== <TYPEMAP>

When compared to the original grammar, three new elements have been added:
 * attributes to the nonterminals in what are now the hyperrules;
 * metarules to specify the allowable values for the attributes;
 * new hyperrules to specify operations on the attribute values.

The new hyperrules are $$\epsilon$$-rules: they only generate the empty string.

ALGOL 68 examples
The ALGOL 68 reports use a slightly different notation without.

ALGOL 68 as in the 1968 Final Report §2.1
a) program : open symbol, standard prelude,     library prelude option, particular program, exit,      library postlude option, standard postlude, close symbol. b) standard prelude : declaration prelude sequence. c) library prelude : declaration prelude sequence. d) particular program : label sequence option, strong CLOSED void clause. e) exit : go on symbol, letter e letter x letter i letter t, label symbol. f) library postlude : statement interlude. g) standard postlude : strong void clause train

ALGOL 68 as in the 1973 Revised Report §2.2.1, §10.1.1
program : strong void new closed clause

A) EXTERNAL :: standard ; library ; system ; particular. B) STOP :: label letter s letter t letter o letter p.

a) program text : STYLE begin token, new LAYER1 preludes,        parallel token, new LAYER1 tasks PACK,         STYLE end token. b) NEST1 preludes : NEST1 standard prelude with DECS1, NEST1 library prelude with DECSETY2, NEST1 system prelude with DECSETY3, where (NEST1) is       (new EMPTY new DECS1 DECSETY2 DECSETY3). c) NEST1 EXTERNAL prelude with DECSETY1 :        strong void NEST1 series with DECSETY1, go on token ;         where (DECSETY1) is (EMPTY), EMPTY. d) NEST1 tasks : NEST1 system task list, and also token, NEST1 user task PACK list. e) NEST1 system task : strong void NEST1 unit. f) NEST1 user task : NEST2 particular prelude with DECS, NEST2 particular program PACK, go on token, NEST2 particular postlude, where (NEST2) is (NEST1 new DECS STOP). g) NEST2 particular program :        NEST2 new LABSETY3 joined label definition        of LABSETY3, strong void NEST2 new LABSETY3        ENCLOSED clause. h) NEST joined label definition of LABSETY : where (LABSETY) is (EMPTY), EMPTY ; where (LABSETY) is (LAB1 LABSETY1), NEST label definition of LAB1, NEST joined label definition of$ LABSETY1. i) NEST2 particular postlude :       strong void NEST2 series with STOP.

A simple example of the power of W-grammars is clause

a) program text : STYLE begin token, new LAYER1 preludes,        parallel token, new LAYER1 tasks PACK,         STYLE end token.

This allows BEGIN ... END and { } as block delimiters, while ruling out BEGIN ... } and { ... END.

One may wish to compare the grammar in the report with the Yacc parser for a subset of ALGOL 68 by Marc van Leeuwen.

Implementations
Anthony Fisher wrote yo-yo, a parser for a large class of W-grammars, with example grammars for expressions, eva, sal and Pascal (the actual ISO 7185 standard for Pascal uses extended Backus–Naur form).

Dick Grune created a C program that would generate all possible productions of a W-grammar.

Applications outside of ALGOL 68
The applications of Extended Affix Grammars (EAG)s mentioned above can effectively be regarded as applications of W-grammars, since EAGs are so close to W-grammars.

W-grammars have also been proposed for the description of complex human actions in ergonomics.

A W-Grammar Description has also been supplied for Ada.

title: Van Wijngaarden grammar


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidiot

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vidiot
Nonsense, dicdef. Android79 19:08, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. dicdef. jni 19:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not "nonsense", really. But it's still a dictdef with no potential that I see for encyclopedic expansion. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, 50,000+ Google hits makes it notable enough for me. Megan1967 01:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks too much like original research to transwiki. Kappa 11:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. dicdef. —Neuropedia 23:05, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidiot


text:
File:Extravagant Worship - The Songs of Reuben Morgan.gif

Summary
Extravagant Worship: The Songs of Reuben Morgan album cover.

Licensing
Source: Hillsong Music Australia


text:
Justin Broadrick

Justin Karl Michael Broadrick (born 15 August 1969) is an English musician, singer and songwriter. He is best known as the lead singer and a founding member of the band Godflesh, one of the first bands to combine elements of extreme metal and industrial music. Following Godflesh's initial breakup in 2002, Broadrick formed the band Jesu.

He was briefly in the English grindcore band Napalm Death when he was a teenager in the mid-1980s, writing and recording guitar for their debut album, Scum. Broadrick has also maintained a parallel career as a producer, producing records and remixes for groups such as Pantera, Isis, Mogwai and Hydra Head labelmates Pelican. Since the 1990s he has worked with Kevin Martin as Techno Animal making various genres of electronic music and hip hop. Since 2012, he has been releasing hard techno music under the solo moniker JK Flesh. Broadrick has set up record labels such as HeadDirt, Avalanche Recordings, Post Mortem Productions (briefly renamed Uprising Productions), Lo Fibre and Heartache.

Childhood and first recordings (1969–1983)
Broadrick was born on 15 August 1969, in a council estate of inner Birmingham. For the first four years of his life, Broadrick was raised by his mother Gabrielle Fern (a.k.a. Lucy Nation) and stepfather Robert Fern (a.k.a. Bob Allcock) in a hippie commune in Shard End. In the late '70s, Broadrick's mother and stepfather were members of Anti-Social, a band infamous for live shows involving blood and faecal matter, as well as for soliciting people to commit suicide via guillotine live on stage. Anti-Social were dubbed "the world's most violent rock group" and released one single, Traffic Lights/Teacher Teacher which is now one of the rarest UK punk record releases. During a period of heroin addiction, Broadrick's biological father was mostly absent from the family home. According to Broadrick, his maternal grandmother from Germany was a "witch" who was into the occult and black magic.

By the age of ten, Broadrick was surrounded by the punk-rock that his parents listened to. "There was Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath, but it was always the stuff that wasn't so standard that grabbed me. I was always playing things like Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music when I was about eight! Stuff like Can, the weirdest parts of Pink Floyd, Hendrix", says Broadrick. "The first thing I probably heard out of the house, when I was about 11 years old, was Crass", says Broadrick. Shortly after seeing them as his first concert, he recorded his first demo tape at the age of 11. "By the age of 12 I fell into early industrial music, stuff like Throbbing Gristle, Whitehouse". Broadrick began to play with his stepfather's guitar, who was then into Roxy Music and Brian Eno.

In 1982, he started publishing tapes with his friend Andy Swan, who had a synthesizer. The first name they went under was Atrocity Exhibition, named after a Joy Division track (which, itself, takes its name from a book by J. G. Ballard). Their first recording was titled Live in the Studio and was the first catalogued release on their cassette label Post Mortem Rekordings. Shortly after, the project was named Smear Campaign, after a Nocturnal Emissions track. This was the name they went under at their first live performance on 7 July 1984 in The Mermaid in Birmingham. Promptly after the show they settled on the name Final. Final was then inspired lyrically and musically by acts such as Throbbing Gristle and Maurizio Bianchi. "We were pretty heavily into the whole industrial tape culture and fanzines of the very early '80s", Broadrick says. The project developed to embrace the power electronics subgenre of industrial music in 1983, releasing material by them and other industrial projects on Post Mortem Rekordings (which was renamed Uprising Productions in 1985) such as Family Patrol Group, Mental Health Act, Ashenden, The Grey Wolves, Con-Dom, Death Magazine 52, Fern and Un-Kommuniti. Final went under numerous lineup changes during its lifetime, including musicians like Philip Timms, Daniel Johnson, Paul Neville, Nicholas Bullen, Graham Robertson and Guy Pearce. "I had about 50 Final releases over about a year and a half", he says. Other project names Broadrick recorded under included Last Exit, Crusade and Dead Pulp. Broadrick also had a short-lived progressive punk band called The Blakk Korridor with Diarmuid Dalton and Dan.

Fall of Because and Napalm Death (1984–1986)
In 1984, Broadrick joined the group Fall of Because [founded by G. Christian Green and Paul Neville in 1982 initially named O.P.D. (Officially Pronounced Dead)] as a drummer and additional vocalist. The group recorded the Extirpate demo cassette in 1986, which contained a number of songs which were later re-worked as songs for Godflesh (including "Life Is Easy", "Mighty Trust Krusher" and "Merciless"). The group disbanded in 1988. The Life Is Easy compilation album of demo and live recordings was released in 1999.

Broadrick met Nicholas Bullen in 1985 at the flea market where he met Andy. Broadrick gave Final tapes to Bullen and they recorded some material together. "Then I played him some of the stuff I did with guitar, which he then played to another guy in Napalm Death. Basically, they were impressed with what I was doing with guitar, and so I joined Napalm Death", Broadrick says. Soon Mick Harris (then member of a psychobilly band) joined the lineup and they shifted from anarcho-punk to grindcore. "Nick and I left Napalm Death after we recorded the first side of Scum. I'd had enough of Napalm Death very, very quickly", he says. Lee Dorrian and Jim Whitely joined to replace Bullen and Broadrick. Broadrick gave the first side to Earache Records founder Digby Pearson, who then contacted the new Napalm Death that had recorded the second side.

Head of David and the forming of Godflesh (1987–1990)
The industrial metal band Head of David had played live with Napalm Death before their drummer left and Broadrick was invited to take his place. "I was in Head of David literally six weeks, and we did a John Peel Session for Radio One. That was the first highlight of my life", Broadrick says. He had been writing more brutal songs for the band, but due to artistic differences, he was kicked out in 1988. "When I first got exposed in '89 to the early acid house movement, I was an instant convert. The first time I heard early Aphex Twin, when Digeridoo first came out, I knew that this was where I wanted to go", Broadrick says.

He formed Godflesh with his friend B. C. Green. They started with working on existing Fall of Because songs and Broadrick was influenced by the hip-hop sound at the time – artists like Public Enemy, Beastie Boys, Run-DMC. Godflesh released their debut self-titled EP on Swordfish Records and in 1989 Earache Records put out their first album Streetcleaner.

Broadrick met Kevin Martin of the band GOD. Martin had a club in Brixton and he promoted the first Godflesh show in London. Godflesh was met with derision on their first tour. However, Godflesh was well received in the United States. "To this day, I still sell the majority of my records in America. Of any music I make, it mostly goes to America", Broadrick says.

Broadrick also played guitar for Sweet Tooth with Scott Kiehl (of GOD) and Dave Cochrane (of Head of David), who released the album Soft White Underbelly on Earache Records in 1990. He is credited as co-writer for all songs. The band also contributed "Fat City" to the compilation Grindcrusher – The Ultimate Earache, which was also on Earache Records.

Side projects (1991–1993)
In 1991, Broadrick and Martin recorded their debut album Ghosts as Techno Animal and it was released on Martin's label Pathological Records. In the end of 1991 Godflesh recorded the experimental Slavestate EP. In 1992, Godflesh released their second studio album Pure. Broadrick and Martin created a new project called Ice in 1993, where they experimented with industrial and dub music as well as hip-hop beat patterns. Broadrick also revived his Final project along with his ambient guitar experiments in 1993. During this period, Broadrick produced records for Pram, Terminal Power Company, Lull and Cable Regime.

Kevin Martin collaborations and electronic music (1994–1999)
In 1994, Godflesh released their album Selfless on Columbia Records and sold approximately 180,000 copies. Broadrick joined Kevin Martin's band GOD as a guitarist for their second and final album The Anatomy of Addiction. The duo recorded the second Techno Animal album, Re-Entry, which was released as a two-disc CD through Virgin Records in 1995. Broadrick was more influenced by hip-hop and dub music when Godflesh recorded the fourth album, Songs of Love and Hate, with live drummer Bryan Mantia. Broadrick also recorded the second Final full-length that was released on Rawkus Records. In 1997, Godflesh released the electronic remix record Love and Hate in Dub. "What Kevin and I were doing with Techno Animal then began to rub off on Godflesh, and vice versa", Broadrick says. From 1997 to 1999, Martin and Broadrick released two Techno Animal compilations, Versus Reality and Radio Hades, a split album with Porter Ricks. They also start a new project titled Curse of the Golden Vampire with Alec Empire. Broadrick also had recorded tracks as JK Flesh during this time but they were released in 2009 in the compilation album From Hell. He turned down offers to join both Faith No More and Danzig. Broadrick released drum and bass music under numerous pseudonyms such as Cylon, Tech Level 2 and Youpho. He also recorded such music with Kevin Martin under the names White Viper and Eraser. At that time, they were influenced by acts like Ed Rush and Dillinja, and labels like No U-Turn and Renegade Hardware.

End of Godflesh and Techno Animal (2000–2003)
In 2000, Broadrick, Green and drummer Ted Parsons began work on the Godflesh album, Hymns. "I was already aware of Godflesh's mortality. Though I enjoyed a good amount of the album, I still felt a bit restricted. I started doing a lot of stuff during the recording of that album where I was really trying to get past the limitations of Godflesh, which were self-created". After the album was released, G. C. Green left due to not wanting to tour any longer. Godflesh was booked for a European tour to open for Fear Factory, so Broadrick invited Paul Raven to replace Ben. A week into the tour Broadrick told "Raven is a fantastic bass player, but it just wasn't Benny, who I had been playing with for 13 years and was a whole part of what Godflesh was". A North American tour was also planned without Broadrick's input. Soon after, Broadrick and his girlfriend of thirteen years broke up. Broadrick slipped into a mental breakdown, fled back to Birmingham and hid at a friend's house just as he was supposed to board a plane to begin the North American tour. Bands, equipment companies and promoters moved to recoup the lost money and Broadrick lost his house and other valuable assets in his name. Kevin Martin moved on to record alone as The Bug and Techno Animal was ended.

Jesu and Final (2004–2009)
In August 2004, Broadrick's new project, Jesu, released the Heart Ache EP. In December, the self-titled debut LP was released. This release featured Ted Parsons on drums, Diarmuid Dalton on bass and a guest appearance from Paul Neville. The album was more melodic than his previous work. "I was still making low-tuned, heavy, guttural music, at the heart of this there was something quite pretty and beautiful, just being construed in an almost ugly fashion", said Broadrick. In November 2005 Broadrick played live as Final for the first time in 20 years and supported Jarboe. Final's two-disc release 3 had been in making for nearly five years and was put out in 2006. Broadrick toured Europe as Final in March 2006. In April 2006 the Silver EP was released through Hydra Head Records. The second full-length album, Conqueror, was released in February 2007. Jesu toured with Sunn O))) and Isis and Broadrick played as a guest with both bands. On 30 April 2007 Jesu released a 12" called Sun Down/Sun Rise. Broadrick began to release limited runs of material on his Avalanche Recordings label, including new material by Final and a Jesu full-length compilation of electronic tracks titled Pale Sketches. In 2008, Broadrick collaborated with former Swans vocalist Jarboe for an album titled J². In May 2008, Broadrick released the first download-only final full-length, Fade Away, and the second, Afar, in October. In 2009, Broadrick released the album Disconnected with his new band, Greymachine.

In January 2009, he released two new digital releases via his label Avalanche Recordings: the Krackhead album and Kitsland. Kitsland was a recording as Council Estate Recordings with Diarmuid Dalton. The project was influenced by Broadrick's old 1980s cassette material. In November 2009, Broadrick announced that Godflesh were reforming for a few shows in the summer 2010.

Pale Sketcher and solo album (2010–2013)
In March 2010, Broadrick announced that he felt Jesu had strayed further away from the guitar driven music that he intended it to be and more into electronica. As a resolution, although Jesu would still contain electronic elements, it would return to a guitar driven sound and a new project, titled Pale Sketcher, would allow Broadrick to explore the electronica oriented sound further without interfering with Jesu. "It's more 4/4-based – shoegazy dream-pop that's almost techno, somewhat in the area of Gas and some of the early Kompakt stuff like Dettinger". On 24 August 2010, he released Jesu: Pale Sketches Demixed on Ghostly International. Broadrick contributed guitar soundscapes to Alan Moore's audiobook Unearthing.

Broadrick released the album Posthuman under the JK Flesh project name on 30 April 2012. Although many of Broadrick's projects feature him performing all instrumentation anyway, the album is considered to be Broadrick's first solo album.

In April 2012, Valley of Fear, a new project of Broadrick, Matthew Bower and Samantha Davies, released an album of noise rock and black metal experiments on Legion Blotan Records. On 11 December, a split release between JK Flesh and Prurient called Worship Is the Cleansing of the Imagination was released on Hydra Head Records. On 17 June 2013, he released the free digital single Warm Sunday / Mogadon as Pale Sketcher on his new record label Heartache Records.

In August 2022, Broadrick announced the release of never before heard Pale Sketcher material. Golden Skin, written and recorded primarily between 2009 and 2013 was originally slated for release on Richard D. James' (Aphex Twin) Rephlex Records prior to it shuttering. The album was unearthed and completed by Broadrick specifically for its unveiling on Give/Take on September 23, 2022.

Signature guitar and Jesu/Sun Kil Moon collaboration (2014–present)
In 2002, since the inception of Jesu, Broadrick used a Schecter C-7 Diamond Series guitar tuned to drop A.

In 2014, Blakhart Guitars released a Broadrick signature edition 8-string guitar. The guitar features a six-bolt Mono-blok neck to body mount, dual expanding truss rods and a string through body fixed bridge and was played by Broadrick for a short time before he switched to another company.

In January 2016, Broadrick's Jesu project collaborated with Mark Kozelek's folk rock project, Sun Kil Moon to record an album titled Jesu/Sun Kil Moon and the collaborative act toured in support of the album. Jesu and Sun Kil Moon collaborated once again to record a cover of "Condor Ave" for an Elliott Smith tribute album titled Say Yes!, released in October 2016. A second album by Jesu and Sun Kil Moon, titled 30 Seconds to the Decline of Planet Earth, was released in May 2017.

In June 2022, Brodrick was a featured guitarist on Hercules and Love Affair's album In Amber, on the single "Poisonous Storytelling" which also featured singer Anohni.

Personal life
Broadrick was in a 13-year relationship that ended around the time Godflesh broke up in 2002. Broadrick resides in Abergele, Wales with his partner and his son.

In 2022, Broadrick was diagnosed with autism and post-traumatic stress disorder.

title: Justin Broadrick


text:
PL/pgSQL

PL/pgSQL (Procedural Language/PostgreSQL) is a procedural programming language supported by the PostgreSQL ORDBMS. It closely resembles Oracle's PL/SQL language. Implemented by Jan Wieck, PL/pgSQL first appeared with PostgreSQL 6.4, released on October 30, 1998. Version 9 also implements some ISO SQL/PSM features, like overloading of SQL-invoked functions and procedures.

PL/pgSQL, as a fully featured programming language, allows much more procedural control than SQL, including the ability to use loops and other control structures. SQL statements and triggers can call functions created in the PL/pgSQL language.

The design of PL/pgSQL aimed to allow PostgreSQL users to perform more complex operations and computations than SQL, while providing ease of use. The language is able to be defined as trusted by the server.

PL/pgSQL is one of the programming languages included in the standard PostgreSQL distribution, the others being PL/Tcl, PL/Perl and PL/Python. In addition, many others are available from third parties, including PL/Java, PL/pgPSM, PL/php, PL/R, PL/Ruby, PL/sh, PL/Lua, Postmodern (based on Common Lisp) and PL/v8. PostgreSQL uses Bison as its parser, making it easy to port many open-source languages, as well as to reuse code.

Comparing with PSM
The SQL/PSM language is specified by an ISO standard, but is also inspired by Oracle's PL/SQL and PL/pgPL/SQL, so there are few differences. The PL/pgPSM contributed module implements the standard. The main features of PSM that differ from PL/pgSQL:

 * Exception handlers are subroutines (continue handlers);
 * Warnings can be handled like an exception;
 * Declaration of variables should be based on SQL query result.

All three languages (Oracle PL/SQL, PostgreSQL PL/pgSQL and ISO SQL/PSM ) are originally descended from the Ada programming language.

Inline documentation external support
Formal pseudo-language for documentation can be embedded in SQL and PL/pgSQL scripts. This documentation is then processed by a documentation generator—an external tool which extracts data and generates hypertext. Since PL/SQL: supports some of these tools, PL/pgSQL is expected to provide full or partial support as well.

Other documentation tools: Doxygen, DBScribe, HyperSQL, Universal Report.

title: PL/pgSQL


text:
Talk:Superintendent

A group of advanced study students in the Alternative Certification program at Western Illinois University will be developing a synthesis of these domains and reacting to their interviewees comments about the current role of school superintendent in Illinois.

Headmaster?
Is superintendent (education) equivalent to headmaster/headmistress? --Aasmunds

I think a US school superintendent is equivalent to a Minister of Education but on a local government level. Avalon 09:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Superintendent


text:
Flixborough

Flixborough is a village and civil parish in North Lincolnshire, England. The population of the civil parish at the 2011 census was 1,664. It is situated near the River Trent, approximately 3 mi north-west from Scunthorpe. The village is noted for the 1974 Flixborough disaster.

Flixborough is in the Burton upon Stather and Winterton ward of North Lincolnshire Council, and its civil parish boundary covers the southern part of Normanby Park. Its Grade II listed Anglican church, part of the Burton upon Stather Group of churches, is dedicated to All Saints. The village public house is The Flixborough Inn on High Street.

History
Flixborough has had many different spellings through the centuries, from "Flichesburg" in the Domesday Book to Flikesburg, Flyxburgh and Flixburrow. Eminson suggests that the first part of the name is an early form of the word cliff, and as the original settlement stood on a sloping cliff overlooking the River Trent, the village's name can be translated as "fortified dwelling on the cliff slope".

The remains of an Anglo-Saxon settlement in the parish of Flixborough were excavated by Humberside Archaeology Unit between 1989 and 1991. The settlement was located 5 mi to the south of the Humber Estuary, overlooking the floodplain of the Trent. During the two-year programme, an unprecedented Middle to Late Saxon rural settlement sequence was uncovered, dating between the early 7th and early 11th centuries AD. It is particularly exceptional because of the association of 40 buildings, floor surfaces and massive refuse dumps.

A notable son of Flixborough is Sir Edmund Anderson, who was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and tried Mary, Queen of Scots.

Flixborough is one of the Thankful Villages that suffered no fatalities during the First World War.

Entry from the 1900 Kelly's Trade Directory
"Flixborough is a parish and pleasant village, 3+1/2 mi northwest from Frodingham station on the Penistone and Cleethorpes branch of the Great Central (late M. S. and L.) railway, 7 miles east from Crowle and 21 miles north from Gainsborough, in the North Lindsey division of the county, parts of Lindsey, north division of Manley wapentake, Winterton petty sessional division, Brigg union, Brigg County Court district, rural deanery of Manlake, archdeaconry of Stow and diocese of Lincoln. Here is a ferry over the River Trent to Amcotts, and the Gainsborough Hull steam packets call here on Tuesdays and Fridays. The old church of All Saints, a very plain edifice of stone, erected in the year 1789, was taken down and rebuilt in 1886, at a cost of £1,710; and is now an edifice in the Late Decorated style, consisting of chancel, nave, south porch and a western belfry of wood, with spire, containing one bell: the church retains a Norman font and a handsome carved oak chancel screen: there are 150 sittings. The register dates from the year 1573. The living is a rectory united with the vicarage of Burton-upon-Stather, joint net yearly value £429, including 163 acres of glebe and two houses, in the gift of Sir B. D. G. Sheffield Bart. and held since 1882 by the Rev. Francis Amcotts Jarvis M.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge, rural dean of Manlake and J.P. Lincs. who resides at Burton. A new rectory house was built in 1884 by the rector, and is occupied by the Rev. Peter Tivy Tomkins of St Aidan's, who is curate. About half a mile (800 m) from the village traces of an old church and the moat belonging to a mansion, formerly, it is believed, the seat of the Anderson family, are still visible: this place is supposed to have been the birthplace of Sir Edmund Anderson, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who died 1 August 1605, and was interred in the church of Epworth, Bedfordshire, where there is a monument with effigies to himself and his wife. Here was formerly a Roman settlement. Sir Berkeley D. G. Sheffield bart of Normanby Park, is Lord of the Manor and principal landowner. The soil is loam, clay, sand and warp; subsoil, various. The chief crops are wheat, barley, turnips, potatoes and beans, and some land is pasture. The area of the township is 2,651 acres of land, 72 of tidal water and 17 of foreshore; rateable value, £2,417; the population in 1891 was 242. Parish Clerk, G. Gillatt. Post Office – Samuel Tate, sub-postmaster. Letters arrive through Doncaster 8.15 am and are dispatched 6 p.m. Postal orders are issued here, but not paid. The nearest money order and telegraph office is at Burton-upon-Stather, 3 miles distant. Parish School (mixed) built in 1877, for 80 children; average attendance, 34; Miss Mary E. Ives, mistress."

Flixborough explosion
On Saturday 1 June 1974 at 16:53 Flixborough was at the centre of the UK's worst industrial accident when the Nypro Works chemical plant was devastated by an explosion, known as the Flixborough disaster. The plant manufactured Caprolactam. Escaping cyclohexane formed a flammable vapour cloud and ignited. Twenty-eight people died and more than 100 were injured, with around 100 homes in the village itself being destroyed or badly damaged. There is a memorial to the disaster.

title: Flixborough