Orthogonal polynomial ensembles in probability theory

We survey a number of models from physics, statistical mechanics, probability theory and combinatorics, which are each described in terms of an orthogonal polynomial ensemble. The most prominent example is apparently the Hermite ensemble, the eigenvalue distribution of the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (GUE), and other well-known ensembles known in random matrix theory like the Laguerre ensemble for the spectrum of Wishart matrices. In recent years, a number of further interesting models were found to lead to orthogonal polynomial ensembles, among which the corner growth model, directed last passage percolation, the PNG droplet, non-colliding random processes, the length of the longest increasing subsequence of a random permutation, and others. Much attention has been paid to universal classes of asymptotic behaviors of these models in the limit of large particle numbers, in particular the spacings between the particles and the fluctuation behavior of the largest particle. Computer simulations suggest that the connections go even farther and also comprise the zeros of the Riemann zeta function. The existing proofs require a substantial technical machinery and heavy tools from various parts of mathematics, in particular complex analysis, combinatorics and variational analysis. Particularly in the last decade, a number of fine results have been achieved, but it is obvious that a comprehensive and thorough understanding of the matter is still lacking. Hence, it seems an appropriate time to provide a surveying text on this research area.Comment: Published at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/154957805100000177 in the Probability Surveys (http://www.i-journals.org/ps/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Joshua and Dulcinea: A Conflict Between Country and Family

This research paper analyzes the struggle that Confederate soldier Joshua Callaway had in balancing his loyalty to his state and to his family in the context of what was expected of Southern men both before and during the Civil War

A Fair Trial: When the Constitution Requires Attorneys to Investigate Their Clients\u27 Brains

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to a fair trial. This fundamental right includes the right to a defense counsel who provides effective assistance. To be effective, attorneys must sometimes develop specific types of evidence in crafting the best defense. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that defense attorneys did not provide effective assistance when they failed to consider neuroscience. But when must defense attorneys develop neuroscience in order to provide effective assistance? This question is difficult because the standard for determining effective assistance is still evolving. There are two leading approaches. First, in Strickland v. Washington, the Court adopted a two-prong “reasonableness” test, which, according to Justice O’Conner, may result in court decisions that fail to properly protect a criminal defendant’s rights. Recently, courts have adopted a second approach based on guidelines promulgated by the American Bar Association. This Note aims to answer this question. It first provides a background on the right to effective assistance of counsel and briefly describes neuroscience evidence, oppositions to and limitations on in its use, and its admissibility in court. Second, this Note attempts to give some guidance to attorneys by exploring the American Bar Association and U.S. Supreme Court standards. Third, it summarizes the results of a statistical analysis conducted by the author, which helps further define when courts require attorneys to develop neuroscience evidence. It concludes by arguing that attorneys need guidance to ensure they are not violating the Sixth Amendment. This Note expands on the American Bar Association’s standard and suggests a framework attorneys may use to determine whether they should develop neuroscience evidence to ensure that their client has a fair trial

NASA overview

The history of NASA efforts at Ames Research Center in researching the performance and application of thrusting augmentors is reviewed. Current objectives include: (1) parametric description of thrust augmentor application to STOL and V/STOL; (2) the use of theoretical and empirical data; (3) aircraft-augmentor integration; and (4) key design considerations for STOL transport and V/STOL fighter aircraft. Test facilities are described and ejector development and performance are assessed

A Fair Trial: When the Constitution Requires Attorneys to Investigate Their Clients\u27 Brains

The U.S. Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to a fair trial. This fundamental right includes the right to a defense counsel who provides effective assistance. To be effective, attorneys must sometimes develop specific types of evidence in crafting the best defense. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that defense attorneys did not provide effective assistance when they failed to consider neuroscience. But when must defense attorneys develop neuroscience in order to provide effective assistance? This question is difficult because the standard for determining effective assistance is still evolving. There are two leading approaches. First, in Strickland v. Washington, the Court adopted a two-prong “reasonableness” test, which, according to Justice O’Conner, may result in court decisions that fail to properly protect a criminal defendant’s rights. Recently, courts have adopted a second approach based on guidelines promulgated by the American Bar Association. This Note aims to answer this question. It first provides a background on the right to effective assistance of counsel and briefly describes neuroscience evidence, oppositions to and limitations on in its use, and its admissibility in court. Second, this Note attempts to give some guidance to attorneys by exploring the American Bar Association and U.S. Supreme Court standards. Third, it summarizes the results of a statistical analysis conducted by the author, which helps further define when courts require attorneys to develop neuroscience evidence. It concludes by arguing that attorneys need guidance to ensure they are not violating the Sixth Amendment. This Note expands on the American Bar Association’s standard and suggests a framework attorneys may use to determine whether they should develop neuroscience evidence to ensure that their client has a fair trial

How to Look Like a Lesbian Without Even Trying

“Ugh. I hate those pictures. I look like such a lesbian in them,” my cousin explained to me while her family and I sat around their kitchen table. After she said this, her younger brother laughed into his chicken noodle soup and she hit him over the head. “Shut up. I’m telling you. They’re so bad,” she said. As the conversation went on, I learn that she was referring to pictures that had been taken at one of her lacrosse practices. The important part is that she was displeased with the photos. And it’s certainly not because someone had caught her in a tryst with a woman and taken pictures of the incident. [excerpt

You Can\u27t Always Get What You Want

My parents used to tell me that I wasn’t entitled to anything—that I should be happy with what I have and not assume that I deserved something unless I had worked for it. Either way, entitlement is something that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. So what do I think I’m entitled to? I’m not really sure. Maybe I’m entitled to making my own choices about what I’m going to do after graduation or having friends that treat me well. Maybe not. [excerpt