background preloader


Charles Fillmore and Beryl Atkins’ definition stipulates three elements: (i) the various senses of a polysemous word have a central origin, (ii) the links between these senses form a network, and (iii) understanding the ‘inner’ one contributes to understanding of the ‘outer’ one.[3] Polysemy is a pivotal concept within disciplines such as media studies and linguistics. Polysemes[edit] A polyseme is a word or phrase with different, but related senses. In vertical polysemy a word refers to a member of a subcategory (e.g., 'dog' for 'male dog').[4] A closely related idea is metonym, in which a word with one original meaning is used to refer to something else connected to it. There are several tests for polysemy, but one of them is zeugma: if one word seems to exhibit zeugma when applied in different contexts, it is likely that the contexts bring out different polysemes of the same word. Examples[edit] Man Mole Bank However: a river bank is a homonym to 1 and 2, as they do not share etymologies. Related:  POLYSEMY AND SYNONYMYPhilosophyminds

Synonym In the figurative sense, two words are sometimes said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation: ...a widespread impression that ... Hollywood was synonymous with immorality...[2] Examples[edit] Synonyms can be any part of speech (such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or prepositions), as long as both words belong to the same part of speech. verb buy and purchaseadjective big and largeadverb quickly and speedilypreposition on and upon Note that synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the aperture in the iris of the eye is not synonymous with student. In English, many synonyms emerged in the Middle Ages, after the Norman conquest of England. Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique. Related terms[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit]

Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry, a book by British philosopher Owen Barfield, is concerned with physics, the evolution of consciousness, pre-history, ancient Greece, ancient Israel, the medieval period, the scientific revolution, Christianity, Romanticism, and much else. The book was Barfield's favorite of those he authored, and the one that he most wanted to continue to be read.[1] It was first published in England in 1957, and it was first issued in paperback in the United States in 1965. According to Barfield, the book enjoyed a far greater reception by the public in North America—particularly in the United States, where Barfield often accepted invitations to lecture—than it did in England.[2] The book explores approximately three thousand years of history — particularly the history of human consciousness in relation to that which precedes or underlies the world of perception or phenomena. Reception[edit] Synopsis[edit] §1: The Rainbow[edit] §3: Figuration and Thinking[edit]

Interconnectedness Interconnectedness is part of the terminology of a worldview which sees a oneness in all things. A similar term, interdependence, is sometimes used instead, although there are slightly different connotations. Both terms tend to refer to the idea that all things are of a single underlying substance and reality, and that there is no true separation deeper than appearances. Some feel that 'interconnectedness' and similar terms are part of a contemporary lexicon of mysticism, which is based on the same core idea of universal oneness. Economic[edit] The economic interconnectedness, so called economic globalization, has evolved and developed ever since the time immemorial with the countries bartering in prospect of finding mutual interests and gains. There are number of categories on economic interconnectedness. "Globalization means international interdependence with disadvantages as well as advantages. Religion[edit] The mystics[who?] Politics[edit] Implications[edit] See also[edit]

Latent semantic analysis Latent semantic analysis (LSA) is a technique in natural language processing, in particular in vectorial semantics, of analyzing relationships between a set of documents and the terms they contain by producing a set of concepts related to the documents and terms. LSA assumes that words that are close in meaning will occur in similar pieces of text. A matrix containing word counts per paragraph (rows represent unique words and columns represent each paragraph) is constructed from a large piece of text and a mathematical technique called singular value decomposition (SVD) is used to reduce the number of columns while preserving the similarity structure among rows. LSA was patented in 1988 (US Patent 4,839,853) by Scott Deerwester, Susan Dumais, George Furnas, Richard Harshman, Thomas Landauer, Karen Lochbaum and Lynn Streeter. Overview[edit] Occurrence matrix[edit] Rank lowering[edit] The consequence of the rank lowering is that some dimensions are combined and depend on more than one term:

Theodor W. Adorno 1. Biographical Sketch Born on September 11, 1903 as Theodor Ludwig Wiesengrund, Adorno lived in Frankfurt am Main for the first three decades of his life and the last two (Müller-Doohm 2005, Claussen 2008). He was the only son of a wealthy German wine merchant of assimilated Jewish background and an accomplished musician of Corsican Catholic descent. Adorno studied philosophy with the neo-Kantian Hans Cornelius and music composition with Alban Berg. Adorno left Germany in the spring of 1934. Conflict and consolidation marked the last decade of Adorno's life. 2. Long before “postmodernism” became fashionable, Adorno and Horkheimer wrote one of the most searching critiques of modernity to have emerged among progressive European intellectuals. Although they cite Francis Bacon as a leading spokesman for an instrumentalized reason that becomes irrational, Horkheimer and Adorno do not think that modern science and scientism are the sole culprits. 3. 4. 5. This occurs in four stages. 6.

Who is winning the 'crypto-war'? 15 March 2014Last updated at 20:12 ET By Gordon Corera Security correspondent, BBC News In the war over encryption between the NSA and privacy activists, who is winning? Ladar Levison sits exhausted, slumped on a sofa with his dog Princess on his lap. He is surrounded by boxes after he moved into a new house in the suburbs of Dallas, Texas, the previous day. He describes his new home as a "monastery for programmers". It is a new email service because Levison himself shut down his old one - called Lavabit - after a visit from the FBI. It began with a business card in May of last year. A tussle with the FBI led to a court ordering Levison to hand over the keys to his email service. "I met the FBI agents in the lobby and I handed them the envelope and the FBI agent held it up to the light, wiggled it back and forth and was like 'Are these the keys?' Levison knew that it would take time for the FBI to input the keys and that gave him the chance to shut down his entire system.

Philosophy Bro Alfred North Whitehead In his early career Whitehead wrote primarily on mathematics, logic, and physics. His most notable work in these fields is the three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910–13), which he co-wrote with former student Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica is considered one of the twentieth century's most important works in mathematical logic, and placed 23rd in a list of the top 100 English-language nonfiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.[44] Whitehead's process philosophy argues that "there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us Life[edit] Whewell's Court north range at Trinity College, Cambridge. Bertrand Russell in 1907. Toward the end of his time in England, Whitehead turned his attention to philosophy. The Whiteheads spent the rest of their lives in the United States. Mathematics and logic[edit] Principia Mathematica[edit]

Does Philosophy Deserve a Place at the Supreme Court? (Thom Brooks) Volume 27 Rutgers Law Record grand theorizing. Moreover, an implicit dialogue between the Court and the philosophers isproposed.Finally, in Part IV, this Comment challenges Rao’s use of “philosophy” as something entirely abstract and steeped in metaphysics. Rao found only forty-seven cases where the Court cited them. Most Rao chose the following philosophers: Aristotle, St. Id . at 1373-74 n.5. . at 1372-73. United States v.Virginia , 518 U.S. 515, 556 n. 20 (1996) (Plato); Rosenberger v. , 515 U.S. 819, 836-37(Plato, Spinoza, Descartes, and Sartre); Missouri v. , 515 U.S. 70, 133 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring) (Nagel); City of Ladue v. , 512 U.S. 43, 56 n. 14 (1994) (Aristotle); Arave v. , 507 U.S. 463, 479 n.1 (1993) (Blackmun, J. Morgan v. , 504 U.S. 719, 752 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (Kant); Barnes v. ,501 U.S. 560, 587 n.1 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) (Aristotle); Webster v. Servs. , 492 U.S. 490, 539 n.1 (1989)(Blackmun, J., dissenting) (Dworkin); Bowen v. Edwards v. Bowers v. Garcia v.

Graviton Theory[edit] The three other known forces of nature are mediated by elementary particles: electromagnetism by the photon, the strong interaction by the gluons, and the weak interaction by the W and Z bosons. The hypothesis is that the gravitational interaction is likewise mediated by an – as yet undiscovered – elementary particle, dubbed as the graviton. In the classical limit, the theory would reduce to general relativity and conform to Newton's law of gravitation in the weak-field limit.[6][7][8] Gravitons and renormalization[edit] When describing graviton interactions, the classical theory (i.e., the tree diagrams) and semiclassical corrections (one-loop diagrams) behave normally, but Feynman diagrams with two (or more) loops lead to ultraviolet divergences; that is, infinite results that cannot be removed because the quantized general relativity is not renormalizable, unlike quantum electrodynamics. Comparison with other forces[edit] Gravitons in speculative theories[edit] See also[edit]

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a 1962 book about the history of science by Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in—and beyond—those scholarly communities. For example, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. History[edit] The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was first published as a monograph in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, then as a book by University of Chicago Press in 1962. Synopsis[edit] Basic approach[edit] Historical examples[edit] Kuhn explains his ideas using examples taken from the history of science.

Graham's number Graham's number, named after Ronald Graham, is a large number that is an upper bound on the solution to a problem in Ramsey theory. The number gained a degree of popular attention when Martin Gardner described it in the "Mathematical Games" section of Scientific American in November 1977, writing that, "In an unpublished proof, Graham has recently established ... a bound so vast that it holds the record for the largest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof." The 1980 Guinness Book of World Records repeated Gardner's claim, adding to the popular interest in this number. According to physicist John Baez, Graham invented the quantity now known as Graham's number in conversation with Gardner himself. Graham's number is unimaginably larger than other well-known large numbers such as a googol, googolplex, and even larger than Skewes' number and Moser's number. Context[edit] Example of a 2-colored 3-dimensional cube containing one single-coloured 4-vertex coplanar complete subgraph.