Somatotypes - Science topic

Dear all,

 I have found in-

Carter JEL. The Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype Instruction Manual. Revised Edition, San Diego, U.S.A., San Diego State University. 2002.

SAM =∑SADi / nX

Where: SADi = somatotype of each subject minus the mean somatotype of the group; nX is the numberin the group x.

please explain this how can I exicute it.

I have synthesised homologous series which is non mesomorphic in nature. How can we prove theoretically that the compound may not possess liquid crystals properties..?

The topological entropy h(f) of continuous endomorphisms f of locally compact groups was defined by R. Bowen (in the metrisable case). One says that the Addition theorem holds for

a continuous endomorphisms f of locally compact group G if for every f-invariant closed normal subgroup of G the topological entropy h(f) of f coincides with the sum of entropies h(f|_H) + h(f'), where f' is the induced endomorphism of G/H.

Bowen established the Addition theorem for compact metrisable groups G, this was proved also

by S. Yuzvinski somewhat earlier. In 1981 a proof containing various gaps of the Addition theorem for LCA groups was proposed by J. Peters. So far no correct proofs are known to the best of our knowledge.

The clean ring has importance in ring and module theory.

I want to know the classes of modules whose endomorphism ring is precisely a clean ring.

WHile undergoing layered additive manufacturing processes of metallic components the option for moving heat source as flux are surface type and body type? whats the difference and which one should we use and why? as the results are significantly different thus its quite important parameter which will effect the accuracy of designed model

The topological entropy of uniformly continuous selfmaps of uniform spaces is defined following Bowen-Dinaburg approach. It works particularly well for continuous endomorphisms of locally compact groups.

I have studied many research articles in which the existence of meromorphic solutions has been discussed. If we gurantee the existence of solutions, then I think we should try to find the general mesomorphic solutions of differences equations of any type. Can I do that ?

Carbon fixation is the conversion process of inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide) to organic compounds by living organisms. The most prominent example is photosynthesis, although chemosynthesis is another form of carbon fixation that can take place in the absence of sunlight. Organisms that grow by fixing carbon are called autotrophs. Autotrophs include photoautotrophs, which synthesize organic compounds using the energy of sunlight, and lithoautotrophs, which synthesize organic compounds using the energy of inorganic oxidation. Heterotrophs are organisms that grow using the carbon fixed by autotrophs. The organic compounds are used by heterotrophs to produce energy and to build body structures. "Fixed carbon", "reduced carbon", and "organic carbon" are equivalent terms for various organic compounds

It is known in basic ring theory that any ring R (with identity) can be embedded in its own endomorphism ring End(R) (This is the analogue of the Cayley theorem in group theory). Is there a characterization or classification for rings R such that R is isomorphic to the whole endomorphism ring End(R)? ; the ring of integers Z is an example of such rings.

I´m working on an article investigating the optimal somatotype and body composition of triathletes. I´m searching for anthropometric characteristics of female and male triathletes competing in different distances and different skill levels

As a just graduate student on physical anthropology, I began to wonder about the modern research trends on the matter. Since a while, I felt curious about the branch known as somatology, which is still taught on few anthropology careers on Latinamerica. I'm not sure about quoting a definition of the field, since there is not something up to date that defines it. In turn, the more I found in my quick internet research was that somatology, apart from the fact of being on clear disuse on the last decades, there is lacking a recent book or publication that sumarize the principles of that discipline, i.e. tenets, theories, techniques and methodologies, in the light of modern biology or at least in a way showing to be relevant for interdisciplinary aproaches in ph. anthropology. The more I've seen is a collection of techniques that characterize populations or subsets of those in function of somehow arbitrary traits (e.g. measuring skinfolds from different parts of body on different groups of people, for example athletes vs sedentary people). So then, I have to ask if there is one from the (at least) three following options:

 a) Somatology is a science in all fairness, or at least some of their aproaches and methods are still valid and founded strongly on biological principles (as population genetics), and is some sort of “victim” of modern trends that are replacing it gradually;

b) Is some kind of “protoscience”, and just needs some tweaks and fixes and more theoretical developement to be up to date and fit in modern biological approaches for anthropology,

c) Is a case of obsolete aproach, with no use for modern reseach whatsoever, and it totally justified that being replaced gradually for other strategies and trends.

I appreciate your honest thoughts on this topic, thanks.

Edit: I think it's very different from what is known actually as kinanthropometry, but not really sure.

Somatotype is an expression of human physique and it has been found that patients suffering from different types of inherited diseases do have different types of physiques. The trisomy 21 patients are short but stout and put on more fat and muscles than the ordinary human beings. Are there some genes which are present on 21st chromosome and may be responsible for this to happen?