Conversations on a probable future: interview with Beatrice Fazi

No description supplie

Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing

A neutrosophic set is a part of neutrosophy that studies the origin, nature, and scope of neutralities, as well as their interactions with different ideational spectra. The neutrosophic set is a powerful general formal framework that has been recently proposed. However, the neutrosophic set needs to be specified from a technical point of view. Here, we define the set-theoretic operators on an instance of a neutrosophic set, and call it an Interval Neutrosophic Set (INS). We prove various properties of INS, which are connected to operations and relations over INS. We also introduce a new logic system based on interval neutrosophic sets. We study the interval neutrosophic propositional calculus and interval neutrosophic predicate calculus. We also create a neutrosophic logic inference system based on interval neutrosophic logic. Under the framework of the interval neutrosophic set, we propose a data model based on the special case of the interval neutrosophic sets called Neutrosophic Data Model. This data model is the extension of fuzzy data model and paraconsistent data model. We generalize the set-theoretic operators and relation-theoretic operators of fuzzy relations and paraconsistent relations to neutrosophic relations. We propose the generalized SQL query constructs and tuple-relational calculus for Neutrosophic Data Model. We also design an architecture of Semantic Web Services agent based on the interval neutrosophic logic and do the simulation study

Adaptive Multidimensional Scaling: The Spatial Representation of Brand Consideration and Dissimilarity Judgments

We propose Adaptive Multidimensional Scaling (AMDS) for simultaneously deriving a brand map and market segments using consumer data on cognitive decision sets and brand dissimilarities.In AMDS, the judgment task is adapted to the individual respondent: dissimilarity judgments are collected only for those brands within a consumers' awareness set.Thus, respondent fatigue and subjects' unfamiliarity with any subset of the brands are circumvented; thereby improving the validity of the dissimilarity data obtained, as well as the multidimensional spatial structure derived.Estimation of the AMDS model results in a spatial map in which the brands and derived segments of consumers are jointly represented as points.The closer a brand is positioned to a segment's ideal brand, the higher the probability that the brand is considered and chosen.An assumption underlying this model representation is that brands within a consumers' consideration set are relatively similar.In an experiment with 200 subjects and 4 product categories, this assumption is validated.We illustrate adaptive multidimensional scaling on commercial data for 20 midsize car brands evaluated by 212 members of a consumer panel.Potential applications of the method and future research opportunities are discussed.scaling;brands;market segmentation

Social Experimentation as Reflection-in-A ction

We present the results of our review of some forty community-level interventions undertaken in the developing world over the past twenty years m order to reduce malnourishment in children. We argue that such interventions, if they are considered as social experiments, cannot be assimilated to models of quasi-experimental method. We propose an alternative model of experimentation, which we call "reflection-in-action", which seems to us better suited to account for the kinds ofvahdity and rigor attainable in situations such as these.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68568/2/10.1177_107554708400600101.pd

“Advice and Consent” in Historical Perspective

In recent years, commentators have complained about what they regard as an increasingly dysfunctional confirmation process for judges and high-ranking executive officials, and the proper role for the Senate in the confirmation process has been much debated. This Article suggests that confirmations have been contentious throughout American history, and that the focus on ideological issues in today’s confirmation proceedings is not anomalous. Indeed, historically, both Republicans and Democrats have used the confirmation process to delay or oppose nominations when the President hails from a different political party, and, sometimes, even when the President comes from the same party but there are ideological objections to the nominee. That the appointments process has, at times, been difficult and contentious should come as no great surprise. The Framers of the United States Constitution intentionally created a governmental structure that was more prone to obstructionism than other comparable systems. Relying on concepts like “separation of powers,” and “checks and balances,” the Framers sought to constrain the federal government in ways that would limit the possibilities for governmental abuse. The appointments power reflects this approach. Like many other constitutional powers, it is a shared power. Although the President has the power to nominate Article III judges, as well as ambassadors and “officers,” nominees can only be confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. By placing the power to appoint in two politically elected entities, the Constitution establishes a system whereby political influences will sometimes have a major impact on the confirmation process. Although contentiousness can arise during any type of nomination, some Supreme Court nominations have been particularly bitter. Both the Senate and the American public have increasingly become aware that the courts make law and that the political and judicial attitudes of nominees matter. Under such circumstances, the Senate’s inquiry quite naturally goes beyond the simple question of whether a nominee is qualified or unqualified. However, the confirmation process is more difficult today, even for nonjudicial nominees, because of the bitter partisanship that has infected the U.S. political system

“Advice and Consent” in Historical Perspective

In recent years, commentators have complained about what they regard as an increasingly dysfunctional confirmation process for judges and high-ranking executive officials, and the proper role for the Senate in the confirmation process has been much debated. This Article suggests that confirmations have been contentious throughout American history, and that the focus on ideological issues in today’s confirmation proceedings is not anomalous. Indeed, historically, both Republicans and Democrats have used the confirmation process to delay or oppose nominations when the President hails from a different political party, and, sometimes, even when the President comes from the same party but there are ideological objections to the nominee. That the appointments process has, at times, been difficult and contentious should come as no great surprise. The Framers of the United States Constitution intentionally created a governmental structure that was more prone to obstructionism than other comparable systems. Relying on concepts like “separation of powers,” and “checks and balances,” the Framers sought to constrain the federal government in ways that would limit the possibilities for governmental abuse. The appointments power reflects this approach. Like many other constitutional powers, it is a shared power. Although the President has the power to nominate Article III judges, as well as ambassadors and “officers,” nominees can only be confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. By placing the power to appoint in two politically elected entities, the Constitution establishes a system whereby political influences will sometimes have a major impact on the confirmation process. Although contentiousness can arise during any type of nomination, some Supreme Court nominations have been particularly bitter. Both the Senate and the American public have increasingly become aware that the courts make law and that the political and judicial attitudes of nominees matter. Under such circumstances, the Senate’s inquiry quite naturally goes beyond the simple question of whether a nominee is qualified or unqualified. However, the confirmation process is more difficult today, even for nonjudicial nominees, because of the bitter partisanship that has infected the U.S. political system

Introduction

In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions.In this book, an international team of fourteen scholars investigates the Chinese reception of Indian Buddhist ideas, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. Topics include Buddhist logic and epistemology (pramāṇa, yinming); commentaries on Indian Buddhist texts; Chinese readings of systems as diverse as Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha; the working out of Indian concepts and problematics in new Chinese works; and previously under-studied Chinese evidence for developments in India. The authors aim to consider the ways that these Chinese materials might furnish evidence of broader Buddhist trends, thereby problematizing a prevalent notion of “sinification”, which has led scholars to consider such materials predominantly in terms of trends ostensibly distinctive to China. The volume also tries to go beyond seeing sixth- and seventh-century China primarily as the age of the formation and establishment of the Chinese Buddhist “schools”. The authors attempt to view the ideas under study on their own terms, as valid Buddhist ideas engendered in a rich, “liminal” space of interchange between two large traditions