Negation - Science topic

1. Определение. Существует известная теорема, представляющая интервал в виде конечной или счетной суммы попарно непересекающихся интервалов. Сумма длин этих смежных интервалов равна длине интервала. Точки, не принадлежащие интервалам, являются точками соединения смежных интервалов или точками конденсации. Предположим, что существует сумма интервалов, что функция строго монотонна и имеет обратную величину на каждом из этих интервалов. В таком случае функция называется невырожденной. Если функция не имеет обратной величины для любой такой суммы интервалов ни на одном из своих интервалов или не является строго монотонной, то функция называется вырожденной. Остальные функции называются полувырожденными. Продолжение функции. Если возможно, продолжайте невырожденную функцию с помощью невырожденной функции до тех пор, пока она не станет невозможной. Замечание. Если функция непрерывна на интервалах, то достаточно требовать either strict monotonicity or invertibility. Example. A constant is a degenerate function. Theorem. The non-degenerate function has a finite non-zero derivative almost everywhere. Proof. By Lebesgue’s theorem, the non-degenerate function, as a strictly monotone function on intervals, has a finite derivative almost everywhere. Suppose it is equal to zero almost everywhere. By definition, it has an inverse. Then its derivative will also be monotone and not finite almost everywhere. This contradicts Lebesgue’s theorem. Conclusion. As the negation of a non-degenerate function, the degenerate function will almost everywhere be either non-differentiable, or its derivative

Which is the most accurate/ usefull command in R for realizing a Necessity test: pofind() (with the option "nec") or superSubset()?

Which is the most common?

I understand that pofind() tests isolated ("independent") conditions and their negations; while superSubset() seeks configurations (i.e. combinations of conditions)....

I used to use superSubset()... but, perhaps for the two-step QCA process and for an ESA analysis... pofind() might be more useful...

Any insight?

recently, i am interest in the study on disocouse trap. as far as my knowlege goes, traditional discourse study focus on the exposure of power, ideaology, inequality,discrimination etc. few papers have discussed on the mechanism of setting up a trap of discourse so as to influence the discourse recipient to accept the special way of thinking and cognitive frame conciously and unconciously. when this speicial frame entrenched in the mind, recipients begin to negates its own position and viewpoint within a specific, limited and biased cognitive framework, thereby negating its own culture and self-worth.

with regard to this idea, i hope i can get more help from the international scholars.

When I cite an author of a previous study in the discussion of data results because my research results corroborate or negate his or her study's findings, is it necessary, that i should already mentioned such study in my review of literature?

I am working with e.coli. I need help with interpretation of the results. I have worked with two E.coli strains. I did triplet technical replicates. I need to do statistical T-test.

Below is some of my datta:

Strain 1 0,407 0,544 0,639 Ave.: 0,53

Strain 2 0,384 0,515 0,34 Ave.: 0,413

Negativ control: 0,161 0,181 0,14 Ave.: 0,160667

Can someone help me with this. Please. There are several methods that are available to measure bacterial biofilm adherence. I was told to do a t-test beetween my average negatic control and a strain of E.coli.

PLEASE HELP

Thank you

We love our conferences as we reconnect with colleagues, meet and greet new friends, visit new places, and enjoy the technical and social programs of the Conference.

It is indisputable that conferences these days are commercialized to the extent that African and Asian countries researchers can't afford attending, thus deepening the scientific and technological gap among researchers based on income and other factors. In my view, This is unethical. Fees system must be revised to address such serious problem.

Furthermore, the greediness extends beyond commercialization to ethics. It is becoming the norm to see the deadlines for paper submissions, acceptance dates, and camera ready dates are extended frequently to get more submissions. Such behaviour negates what we teach and preach about meeting deadline to our students and colleagues. I am puzzled to what I can say to my students when I am confronted by a request to extend the deadline for a Homework, an exam, or a Final.

It is about time that we adopt an ethical system where there is no deadline extensions and make our conferences feasible to attend for all researchers.

This may be a naive question, but why are the results of negated and positive outcomes not polar opposites of one another? There are different coverages and consistencies in the two outcome solutions - could that be reflective of the reason?

Hello,

I read some papers they used Pre-processing steps with text that will classify based on Sentiment Analysis.

My question is, can I use text Pre-processing techniques in the sentiment analysis classification, such as the Stop Words Removal and Stemming techniques? If can, it will cause Negations Words or Negation Prefix to be deleted, such as ( I am Not happy), will be (happy) after we use Stop Words Removal technique or (unlucky) will be (lucky) after we do Stemming process. That's mean the sentence that should classified into negative class will be classified into positive class. How to deal with that?

Thanks to answers in advance.

Hi,

I am looking for a scale to measure technology rejection as a latent variable. Any pointer/suggestions will be appreciated!

[In the opinion of Gatignon and Robertson (1989), technology rejection is a distinct phenomenon and not merely a negation of its acceptance.]

Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1989). Technology diffusion: An empirical test of competitive effects. Journal of Marketing, 53,

35-49.

I ran PCR in order to analyze a P-element excision on a mutant drosophila line. My results were not conclusive, however that is beside the point. I ran a temperature gradient in order to optimize the binding of my primers and negate the possibility of dimers forming. I noticed that I was getting different signal intensities for different DNA templates depending on the temperature. For example, I had no signal at all for my canton S wildtype at 57C and a strong signal for my excision line at the same temperature (57C). But then at 59C I got a strong signal for my canton S wildtype and an extremely weak signal for my excision line. I was just wondering what could account for this? Shouldn't the signals be relatively similar to each other even if they increase/decrease in intensity based off of the temperature? As in they should both have strong signal at 57C and then both have weak signal at 59C or vice versa (depending on the results of the temperature gradient). I added some pictures below of the gel from the 57C and the 59C samples that I ran.

PCR Parameters:

Primer concentration = 1uM

Template DNA = 200ng (found that 100ng gave too low signal)

Taq Polymerase mix = GoTaq Master Mix

Primer Tm = Forward 60.39C ; Reverse 60.81C

Cycles = 30

Annealing Time = (Temp gradient 57C, 58C, 59C, 60C, 62C) for 30 seconds

Denaturation Cycle = 94C for 30 seconds

Extension Cycle = 72C for 2:10 (target length 2169bp)

We are developing a test for ad-hoc (ad-hoc) and scalar implicatures (SI) and are showing 3 images (of similar nature) to the participants: image, image with 1 item, image with 2 items.

Eg. Plate with pasta, a plate with pasta and sauce, a plate with pasta, sauce and meatballs.

A question for an ad-hoc is: My pasta has meatballs, which is my pasta?

Q. for an SI is: My pasta has sauce or meatballs, which is my pasta? (pasta with sauce is the target item since we are testing pragmatic implicatures, where 'or' means 'not both'.

The item that causes many difficulties in making up questions is the image without any items, ie. plate with pasta. How do we phrase the question so that it elicits this image as a target response, without using too complex syntax?

Negation; "My plate has no sauce or meatballs", "My plate has only pasta, no sauce and no meatballs", seems like a complex structure to introduce as a counterbalance to the other type of items.

Has anyone tested something similar, without negation? We would be grateful for any kind of tips and hints.

We are developing a test for ad-hoc (ad-hoc) and scalar implicatures (SI) and are showing 3 images (of similar nature) to the participants: image, image with 1 item, image with 2 items.

E.g. Plate with pasta, a plate with pasta and sauce, a plate with pasta, sauce and meatballs.

A question for an ad-hoc is: My pasta has meatballs, which is my pasta?

Q. for an SI is: My pasta has sauce or meatballs, which is my pasta? (pasta with sauce is the target item since we are testing pragmatic implicatures, where 'or' means 'not both'.)

The item that causes many difficulties in making up questions is the image without any items, ie. plate with pasta. How do we phrase the question so that it elicits this image as a target response, without using too complex syntax?

Negation; "My plate has no sauce or meatballs", "My plate has only pasta, no sauce and no meatballs", seems like a complex structure to introduce as a counterbalance to the other type of items.

Has anyone tested something similar, without negation? We would be grateful for any kind of tips and hints.

I have seen studies that show that height is related to LV size and stroke volume, but not actual heart rate. My thought is that the larger stroke volume is negated by greater distance that blood needs to travel and larger blood volume that needs to be expelled from the ventricles. Please let me know, if I am wrong!

If dialectical logic is satisfied by below:

1) Defined in individual domain D, and its true-valued function is valued on closed interval [-1,+1];

2) For any individual variable a and b, and their true-valued function T(a), T(b), define three operators: conjunction operator /\, excuse me where restricted to can not use standard symbols and as same as below, disjunction operator \/, and negation operator #, make

T(a)/\T(b)=min{T(a),T(b)}

T(a)\/T(b)=max{T(a),T(b)}

#T(a)=#(v⁺,v⁺-1)=(1-v⁺,-v⁺)

3) If results oeprated by the three operators above is included in [-1,+1], then we call dialectical logic as self-completed.

Obviously dialectical logic is a Boolean-operated algebra.

Lemma1. Dialectical logic is self-completed.

Theorem: If a subset S of dialectical logic is self-completed, then this subset must be a Boolean-operated algebra.

Especially when this subset is valued on {0,1}, then it is just the Boolean algebra. Therefor we have the conclusion: Boolean algebra is a special case of dialectical logic.

Is the proof above true?

Hi Stuart,

I read your creep-ductility review with interest and would like to acknowledge the prominence you gave my work. However, I do believe there was some misunderstanding of my use of the term intrinsic ductility so I shall try and clarify.

1. I was unaware that the term is used to describe a construction on a creep to failure curve and also a Monkman-Grant analysis. I do not see how these measurements can be intrinsic when the specimen in both cases has to be subjected to a complex deformation path to failure before it can be measured. A term such as “effective ductility” or even “useful ductility” would be more appropriate. Intrinsic surely implies a current state measurement, like a physical property measurement, that makes no change and does no damage, or in the case of the short time stress relaxation test, minimal change to the specimen.

2. You indicate that the claim of detection of a stress-dependent ductility minimum is dubious because of the role played by time-dependent changes on the ductility minimum. My point is that there is a stress-dependent intrinsic ductility minimum in the original state. After exposure with time–dependent changes there is a new intrinsic state. However, in the analysis for T91steel, which you did not reference, which compared data for service exposed and reheat treated conditions, the change in the stress-dependence of the intrinsic ductility minimum was quite small even though the magnitude was significantly altered. Note also that the intrinsic ductility trends were consistent with elongation at failure trends in many heats of this steel (figure 10 in that paper and the text description) (1).

3. In summary, intrinsic ductility to me means an instantaneous or current snap-shot of the ductility capability. After service exposure a similar snap-shot will indicate any change in that capability. The conceptual difference from the traditional approach, including any arbitrary construction on a creep curve, I hope negates your calling the approach “dubious.”

4. Hart and other theoreticians, followed by many experimentalists made a big splash in the USA, notably in the 60s and 70s, and their work was my inspiration. I do not believe the work was followed in Europe. The SRT test as I developed it at high temperatures can be quite difficult to perform in a reproducible and stable way as I believe you had indicated to me. There are a few tests now reported in China and India that look promising.

I hope this helped to get us on the same wavelength,

Best regards,

David

1 David A Woodford, “Comparison of creep strength and intrinsic ductility for serviced and reheat treated T91 steel based on stress relaxation testing,” Mat. at High Temp., 34 (2), p.140-148.

For one of my recent article which is under peer-review, I got an impression (one of the reviewer explicitly mentioned the comment of the other reviewer ), that the two reviewers are able to/or allowed to read the comments of one another. Does it not negate the purpose of independent and unbiased review system? Or is it just a case where I have been ignorant or uninformed that such a practice exists?

If it does exist? Is this an ethical practice?

I am trying to express mammalian protein in bacterial system. Protein Size 70kDa, vector backbone pET28a+. I received the gene in pUC backbone, when transformed in DH5a, showed clonal variation. Upon checking, correct clone was selected and assumed that after ligation, there might not be any such difference but to my surprise, there also i am getting clonal variation. I have taken negative controls like vector, insert and competent cells to negate any extraction and handling errors. Would appreciate suggestions and method to understand this problem.

As locations on a dimension, are you considering:

Hyperbole, tautology, meiosis, [ZERO], irony {sarcasm]?

Do we have a term for the zero in this dimension? Should we take sarcasm as "biting" irony, that is as more extreme, as hyperbolic? Is simple negation a zero on the scale? Or does irony require a step further on the scale?

John Kennedy

Laws of dialectics describe evolution of knowledge as well as development of things and nature. These laws are mainly three given by:

However, how these laws are applied to conduct new research, to develop new solutions represents a challenging task. Please try to describe your experience on applying these laws to conform or arrive to novel and useful scientific or technical solutions.

Hi ,

Suppose an aperture is illuminated by laser ,and i'm interested in its negative by optics means.

I need to maintain the waveform coherence of the negative image to be processed at Fourier optics.

Does anyone has a way without using interferometer ?

for example:

input image                  output image:

1 1 1                               0 0 0

1 0 1                               0 1 0

1 1 1                               0 0 0 

I thought of this setup:

pass the laser beam through beam splitter.

one of the beam passes through the aperture and then through a waveplate of half wavelength.

Then the two beams are recombined at beam combiner.

This way the waveforms are substracted.

Thank you 

Qualitative studies, particularly doctoral theses are declared incoherent in case a researcher use methodology inherently lying in other paradigm as different paradigms have different assumptions about the social world and the methodologies to know it. My question is then do mixing methods across paradigms (pragmatism) not negate the basic purpose of the paradigms? How can a social reality be simultaneously seen from realist (or its variants) and idealist (or its variants) views?

In quantum physics,  the no-communication theorem states that it is not possible to transmit information from one observer to another observer, whether entangled or not, by making a measurement of a subsystem of a total state, common to both observers.

Most people think that the theorem is important because it limits quantum entanglement, that separated events cannot be correlated in any way to lead to the possibility of communication. 

However, the double-slit experiment [1] says that what one observer does (e.g. turn on a detector) influences what is detected at the other observer (e.g. the electron did not pass here).

What is your reference or position on this question, could the double-slit experiment be used to negate the no-communication theorem?

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_better_tor_students_to_view_the_double_slit_experiment_as_three_different_cases_or_two?

So I'm making silicone pads through spin-coating onto wafers, but I am not getting a uniform thickness from center to edge. I've tried using more material to cover the entirety of the surface before spinning so as to negate force differences. I've also tried varying spin speed. Any suggestions?

My requirement is user  feedbacks on restaurant data  and determining if they are positive or negative about a subject. I am taking the approach outlined below, but I keep reading NLP may be of use here. All that I have read has pointed at NLP detecting opinion from fact, which I don't think would matter much in my case. I'm wondering two things:

1) Why wouldn't my algorithm work and/or how can I improve it? ( I know sarcasm would probably be a pitfall, but again I don't see that occurring much in the type of news we will be getting)

2) How would NLP help, why should I use it?

My algorithmic approach (I have dictionaries of positive, negative, and negation words):

1) Count number of positive and negative words in article

2) If a negation word is found with 2 or 3 words of the positive or negative word, (ie: NOT the best) negate the score.

3) Multiply the scores by weights that have been manually assigned to each word. (1.0 to start)

4) Add up the totals for positive and negative to get the sentiment score.

Decoupling GDP from resource use through resource and efficiency revolution has become crucial mantra of our time to ensure absolute resource consumption level within ecological limits. However, it is generally argued that the rebound effect may occur if energy efficiency (EE) improvements enable other resource-intensive activities to take place, thereby negating any saving or efficiency gain. This is because  EE gain lowers real price of energy & thus induces energy use due to combination of substitution effect (making energy cheaper than other inputs) &  income effect (economic growth pulls up energy use).  Some other argue that even if EE does not lead to absolute reduction in energy use in all cases it improves access to energy service by lowering their effective cost.

Are there any empirical evidence from any countries showing the magnitude to various rebound effects and the extent to which they prevent consumption from staying within ecological limits?

I have a research project with seven predictor variables that have relatively high correlations with each other. Also, the actual multicollinearity statistics are very poor.

Unfortunately, qualitative analyses led us to these quantitive tests, so removing variables is not ideal. Please let me know if you know of any methods to negate this issue.

Machine Learning in negation and speculation detection ...

I came across such a claim in the literature of Chinese grammar.

Someone suggests that a Chinese equivalent of "in vain" is a negator of a presupposition that doing something will be rewarded. I don't know if the concept of "presupposition negator" makes any sense.

I would also like to know if there are works deliberating on the issue of what is/is not a presupposition trigger, not for the very straightforward presuppositions, but for those very complicated ones.

I mean those kind of background presuppositions. It seems to me that they are not presuppositions at all. But what are they? The starting example is "in vain".

Do you know about some research? What would you recommend to study in regards to this relationship?