text:
# “why is current the derivative of charge and not integral of charge?”

Current is defined as the amount of charge passing a given point per unit time. The word amount throws me off. sorry if this question seems dumb, but

why can current not be equal to integral of charge from time t=t1 to t2?

since we want to know the amount of charge passing a given point, we can add up charge from time t1 until time t2

• Compare this to kinematics: "$\Delta x$ is defined as the amount of change in position. So $\Delta x = \int x \, dt$, since we want to know the amount of change in position, we add up the position." – knzhou Oct 8 '18 at 15:59
• You defined current as for 'per unit time' . Hope you have got enough hint.. – Jnan Oct 8 '18 at 16:00

Current is defined as the amount of charge passing a given point per unit time.

In fact, electric current is defined as the flow of electric charge. From the Wikipedia article Electric current

An electric current is a flow of electric charge.

From the Britannica article Electric current

Electric current is a measure of the flow of charge

A flow is a rate, i.e., an amount over an elapsed time. If an amount of electric charge $$\Delta Q$$ flows into a region in some time $$\Delta t$$, then there is an electric current into the region (with an average value of)

$$\bar{I} = \frac{\Delta Q}{\Delta t}$$

In the electric circuit context, we have a circuit law (Kirchhoff's Current Law) that requires the current into a region equal the current out of the region and so we can think of the current through the region, e.g., the body of a resistor.

This is because current is strictly defined as the rate at which charge passes through a given cross sectional area of a conductor. Here, we are required to measure "how many" charges cross the perpendicular cross section in a given time, therefore derivative is used here as a 'rate measurer'.


text:
# 새고막의 통조림 가공 적성

• 배태진 (여수대학교 식품공학과)
• Published : 1998.04.01

#### Abstract

This study was carried out to process canned ark shell with highly quality by management of proper processing conditions for prevention of oxidation and discoloration by heating. Ark shell has hemoglobin as blood pigment in red blood shell which same as other cockles. Hemoglobin is easy to come oxidation and browning reaction, and it has large contents of carotenoid as meat pigment. Proximate compositions in ark shell were 76.9% of moisture, 18.1% of crude protein, 1.8% of crude lipid, 1.3% of carbohydrate and 1.6% of crude ash. And contents of carotenoid and hemoglobin were 0.67~1.02mg% and 0.98~1.64g/dl, respectively. When the living ark shell was soaked in 2% NaCl solutions, about 89% of mud was removed after 10 hours soaking, and over 91% was removed when the pH was adjusted to 7.5. Carotenoid pigment were prepared that extracted from ark shell by using acetone. And determined visible spectrum were two peak at 452nm and 687nm, and λmax were 452nm. During thermal treatment at 95$^{\circ}C$, 111$^{\circ}C$, 116$^{\circ}C$ and 121$^{\circ}C$ for 60 minutes, retention ratio of carotenoid were 71.8%, 66.8%, 64.4% and 36.5%, and after 120 minutes retention ratio were 56.6%, 30.6%, 30.3% and 17.2%, respectively. When heated at 95$^{\circ}C$, 111$^{\circ}C$, 116$^{\circ}C$ and 121$^{\circ}C$, formation of browning material were increased at high temperature and long time treatment.

format: plain


text:
COUNTY
of
CHRISTIAN,

KENTUCKY

Historical and Biographical

EDITED BY WILLIAM HENRY PERRIN

F.A. BATTEY PUBLISHING CO.
Chicago and Louisville
1884

CHAPTER XI.

CASKY. PEMBROKE AND LONGVIEW PRECINCTS-GENERAL DESCRIPTION EARLY SETTLEMENTS-SOME NORTH CAROLINA TORIES-BLOCK-HOUSFS IN THE OLD DAN-IS SETTLEMENT-GOING TO RUSSELLVILLE TO MILL - RUMSEY'S AND COLEMAN'S MILLS-OTHER SETTLERS-MORALIZING OTHE NEGRO'S FUTURE-EDUCATIONAL-EARLY SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS -RELIGIOUS-OLD BETHEL CHURCH-OTHER CONGREGATIONS-VILLAGES-THE BUSINESS OF PEMBROKE-SUMMARY-THE CASKY GRANGE, ETC., ETC.

HE who attempts to present with unvarying accuracy the annals Of a county or even a precinct, whose history reaches back through the long stretch of a century of years, imposes upon himself a task beset with many difficulties. These difficulties, manifold and perplexing in themselves, are often augmented by conflicting statements and varying data furnished by well-meaning descendants of early settlers, as material from which to compile a true and faithful record of past events. To give facts and facts only should be the aim and ambition of him who professes to deal with the past, and in the pages which follow the writer inclines to those statements supported by the greater weight of testimony, and the more reasonable air of probability.

These were some among the earliest settlers that came to the county. They found the whole southeastern part of the country a " barren " or prairie as we have before said, and though there was an abundance of game and water, there was great scarcity of fuel and building material. For the former they were limited to the roots that could be " grubbed " out of the ground, sometimes as large round as a man's thigh and sometimes larger. These were generally indicated by a shoot or switch, the  growth of a season, and were dug out with a mattock with great labor and effort. An expert hand could "grub " out one of these tap-roots, generally hickory, in about half an hour. For building material they were compelled to resort to distant groves on the outskirts of the " barrens," though now and then small clumps of trees were to be found about particular springs and basins. There were only friendly Indians in the immediate neighborhood, yet occasional incursions were made by small marauding parties of Creeks and Shawanese from the territory farther on toward the Ohio River, and from these and any other dangers that might arise the pioneers resorted to the protection of forts or block-houses. On the old Fortson's place there long stood a block-house, with loop-holes cut in the sides and a thick slab door made out of walnut. An anecdote to connection with this primitive structure is related of an old German who had just moved in. With his mind full of apprehension as to dangers from the Indians, he one day saw a party of five or six men in the distance. and magnifying them into a whole tribe of hostiles, started on a dead run for the fort some eight miles distant. The inmates at once prepared for defense, but in a short time were re-assured by the appearance of the hostiles themselves, who turned out to be a small party of hunters from an adjoining settlement.

At first breadstuffs were very scarce, and the settlers had to go to Russellville, in Logan County, or over into the State of Tennessee for their milling. After a while, however, Dr. Edward Rumsey, brother of the famous inventor of the steamboat., and father to the ion. Edward Rumsey, moved into the neighborhood from Botetourt, Va., and being himself of an inventive turn of mind, erected a mill on the West Fork of Red River, to which they resorted. But as breadstuffs and other necessaries and conveniences of living began to increase, game, such as deer, bears. turkeys, etc., began to decrease, and the more nomadic elements of society, such as the professional hunters and trappers, began to seek for localities where they were more plenty. But as these folded their tents and, like the Arab, "stole silently away," others came in to take their place and fill up the vacancy. Among these were the Moores, Gordons, Joneses, all related ; the Gilmores, who settled the place afterward owned by David Parish, the father-in-law of James A. McKenzie, present Secretary of State. Many excellent families from Virginia and elsewhere, who had settled along the Tennessee line when the line was run, found themselves much to their dissatisfaction included within the boundaries of that State. It is said that Joshua Cates, who owned land thus " counted out.' though he did not live on it, offered $1,000 to have the line so run as to include it within the boundaries of Kentucky, alleging as his reason for the preference that, " new countries were always unhealthy.." The next influx of settlers came about the beginning of the century, and were, many of them, cultivated people for that day, and possessed of large estates of land and negroes. Among them was Dr. Rumsey, who has been mentioned, and Dr. John F. Bell, who, though he came some time later, afterward bought the James Davis farm, the first land acquired and settled upon in the county. The Drs. Rumsey and Bell, especially the latter, were esteemed for their professional skill and great urbanity, and were for a long time the only physicians in a radius of many miles around. Bell first settled at Trenton, but afterward removed to his farm. Benjamin, Joseph and Thomas Kelly, brothers, came from Maryland in 1804 and settled on a place in the neighborhood of Dr. Rumsey; farmers, good, reputable citizens, and left large families. Ben's sons were Roger F., Ben, William, James and Horace, and several daughters. Joseph's sons were R. H. and Edwin. and several daughters. Thomas had two children - Dr. Duke Kelly, of Nashville, and Mrs. David S. Patton. Dr. Bell lived to a good old age, and died but a year or two ago; sons-John, Darwin, Cincinnatus, and five daughters. Robert Coleman, who came about this time from Culpeper County, Va., was a rare specimen of the genus homo. He was a lawyer by profession, and attended the courts at Hopkinsville, Russellville, Nashville and some say at Salem, in Caldwell County, then county seat of Livingston. It is related of him, by those who remember him as a practitioner at the Hopkinsville bar, that he always brought food for himself and horse in a large cotton wallet, and would never go to a house of "entertainment" for his meals. On one occasion, while in the midst of an impassioned address to the jury on behalf of his client, he happened to look out of the door toward his horse, and seeing an old sow with his wallet under her feet in the mud, he excused himself to the Judge, ran out and recovered the sack, if not its contents, and returning took up the thread of his argument where he had left off, and finished as though nothing had ever happened to disturb his equanimity. He settled on the farm now owned by William Perkins, on the West Fork of Red River, three miles southeast of Pembroke. He was also a speculator in lands and negroes, and in time acquired a large estate of both. He afterward built a " grist-mill " on the West Fork near his residence, which was perhaps, next to Rumsey's, the first in that portion of the county. His residence was a large two-story brick the first in the county, and being conveniently situated, he opened it to the general public as a house of entertainment. In front was a large post, surmounted by a flaming sign on which was painted a lion rampant, and the comforting assurance to the weary traveler that here was to be had " entertainment for both man and beast." This old Coleman residence, elegant in its day, stood till only a few years ago-1879, when it was torn down by the present owner, Isaac Garnett, and remodeled into a one-story cottage. John D. Jameson, of Hopkinsville, about 1820 married one of Coleman's daughters, and removed to the neighborhood. Early in the century several German families moved into the same neighborhood, but from what point of the compass, unless directly from Germany, cannot now be ascertained. Among them were the Kenners, Bollingers, Massies, etc., who are all supposed to have been related. Joseph Kenner, the founder of the Kenner family, was a raw Dutchman, and he, or one of his sons, is the man that ran away from the supposed Indians. About 1830 he got into dispute with a neighbor, one Ballard, over a calf. Both claimed it, and both brought forward voluminous testimony to prove their claims. But Kenner had it in possession, and "persesshun bein' nine pints in the law," he of course refused to give it up. Finally, after many hot words between them, through the kind offices of mutual friends, it was agreed to arbitrate the matter. The arbitrators were selected and the day agreed on, but before its arrival Kenner either to settle the matter in his own favor beyond peradventure or fearing the result of investigation killed it, and under cover of night carried the skin to a distant tanner. This transpiring on the day of arbitration, Ballard brought suit against Kenner before Squire Bradshaw for its price-$10. On the day of trial, Ballard's witnesses swore they had seen it while in Kenner's possession, and were satisfied it was Ballard's calf.

They recognized it by certain spots on its body, and the horns which were of unequal length. In rebuttal to this, however, others of Kenner's neighbors swore as point blank the other way. They had known the calf quite as intimately, and were ready to swear it had always been on Kenner's place, from the time of its birth till killed. Thus matters stood at even poise between them. inclining, if anything in favor of the old Teuton, when one of his daughters was put on the stand.

She was equally positive as to the identity of the calf; indeed, too much so, for on being asked the question if one of the calf's horns was not somewhat shorter than the other promptly replied: " Nein'. nein ! dot ish a lie. It vas not shorter as de oder, but longer." Ballard's lawyer, in making his closing argument, insisted that the only statute covering the case was to be found in the Levitical code, and required that the trespasser should be made to repay its value four-fold. Squire Bradshaw, though giving judgment in his client's favor, declined going so far back for either law or precedent. He adjudged the damages at $10, the supposed value of the calf. A reliable negro man of Kenner's long afterward told Squire Hord now of Trenton, Todd County, that the calf was certainly Kenner's, and had been born and reared on the place, and that the old gentleman only intended to end all complications, as he thought, by killing and skinning it. Edwin Hall was another early settler and located on a farm adjoining the McFadden place. He was a good citizen and worthy man, but beyond this little else is known. The Hall place is now the property of Joseph Waddill. Azariah Davis was Hall's nearest neighbor and built a saw--mill on his place. He was a regular land shark and gave the neighbors much trouble by picking flaws in their titles. Many of the original surveys on account of the high prairie or barrens grass were made on horseback, and subsequently were found to overrun the measure largely. Davis, ascertaining the fact, in many cases gave his neighbors great trouble. Squire Hord's father, Thomas Hord, who settled on the farm now owned by Stephen Hanna near Salubria, at one time paid him several hundred dollars to get rid of him and avoid a lawsuit. Some have thought him to be a son or relative of James Davis, but the probabilities are he was neither. Edward Bradshaw was a native of Virginia, and when only a child removed with his parents to Jessamine County, Ky., and in 1803 to Christian County, and located on the farm now owned by Thomas Greene near Casky Station. His brothers, Benjamin and William Bradshaw, came to the county a few years later, and settled in Casky. Daniel Benham came to the county at a very early day, and settled on the place now owned by Edward Welch, colored, one and a half miles northeast of Pembroke. He built a " still " on his place, and besides tanned leather in a small way. He afterward removed with his family to Texas. Robert Harrison was another " old timer," and located on the place now belonging to W. H. Fortson. Before his death be had a fine grove of red oaks blown down by a May cyclone, and utilized the timber by having it sawed up into lumber. This was a great convenience to the people who in those days had to go a long way off to get building material. Joshua Brockman came with his sister, Mrs. Mason, from Virginia and built on the farm now owned by John Lackey. His was a peculiar case. Though an invalid and confined to his bed for many years, such was his administrative ability he managed to carry on his farm with negroes, and attended successfully to many other affairs at the same time. He died a bachelor possessed of much land and many negroes, and was buried at the Bethel Cemetery. James Walsh, another early settler, was a carpenter and settled on the present Payne farm. He built a house for Maj. Isaac H. Evans once, over which he and the Major bad a disagreement. In the course of their altercation Walsh said to Evans : " Maj. Evans, I have a contemptible opinion of any one that would act as you have done in this matter." " Sir," said the Major in reply, " I never knew you to have an opinion that wasn't contemptible." Should any reader by accident stumble upon this original anecdote in an old school reader or elsewhere, and find it attributed to somebody else, we hope he will give Walsh the benefit of the doubt, even though it should rob the Major of the honor of so neat a retort. Walsh was a good carpenter, and an estimable citizen every way, and left several worthy sons behind him, and it is to be hoped he never was really so colloquially worsted. A more authentic anecdote perhaps is told of one James Sanders, a Virginian from along the North Carolina border, and a neighbor of Walsh's Sanders during his first wife's life-time had been a very profane man, but after his second marriage through his wife's influence had become religious and joined the Baptist Church at Bethel. During the war a Federal soldier rode up to his front porch, and against his earnest protest, took a nicely tanned sheepskin. In telling a friend of the occurrence afterward he said : I'll tell you what, Davv ! I'll be d -d (as I used to say) if I wasn't mad enough to have cussed him right then and there." The reformed swearer often has to correct himself with an "as I used to say." The farm settled by James Sanders is now the property of Messrs. Garnett, Dudley and Williams. James Harlan, from Mercer County and a relative of Hon. John M. Harlan, one of the present Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, came to the county at an early day, and settled on the farm now owned by W. D. Garnett. Little else is known of him than the fact that he was a good farmer and a worthy citizen. Another family, since distinguished by one of its representatives, was that of Samuel Davis, father of Jeff Davis, President of the late Southern Confederacy. For many years Mr. Davis lived in Fairview just over the Pembroke line in the house where his distinguished son was born. He was a County Surveyor, and highly respected by all who knew him. From some cause or other later on he became unfortunate in business, broke up and moved to Mississippi. A few years ago, when Mr. Davis came back to his native county to make an address, his friends drove him over to Fairview to see the old place. Among other early settlers were Austin Cason, a Virginian and a soldier of 181?, a very tall man. James Bowles came from North Carolina at a very early day, it is supposed about the time Bartholomew Wood came to the county. He settled near Casky in what was long known as the Bowles neighborhood. He left four or Eve sons : James, Austin, David and Gus and perhaps George, all of whom or a majority of them settled around him. Gus afterward married a grand-daughter of Bat Wood. Thomas Hord, a very large man who weighed about ?80 pounds, and Owen Smith, another soldier of 181?, and father of Capt. Thomas Smith, now of Florida. were other settlers. Smith was a man of fine humor, and very companionable, and what is unusual in such cases died possessed of a fine estate. James Garnett came shortly after Thomas Hord from Virginia, and though poor at first, by provident living and good management soon acquired a comfortable property. He was the father of Ben, Eldred, and James Garnett, the latter of whom married the daughter of James Davis, the first settler, or Azariah Davis, of whom we have spoken. James died a few months ago near Pembroke, lamented by his many friends. John Rawlins came from Maryland and brought with him a dried frog which he used in some way to cure horses for the big-head and other kindred diseases. He was a stanch Episcopalian, lived a long and useful life, and finally died at his old homestead. Joseph Casky, who is mentioned elsewhere, settled in Casky in the Bradshaw neighborhood and afterward removed to Casky Station. He reared a large family of sons Robert, John, Joseph, James, Charles and William-and several daughters. Mr. Casky after the Revolutionary war, in which he served, lived with the father of Henry Clay and married a young lady who was either a relative or a ward of the family. Casky Station is named for the Casky family. James Hall came at an early day from Coroline County, Va., and settled one-half mile west from Pembroke, on the Garnett place. Hall was much opposed to railroads and said to Squire Hord when the present road was under contemplation, " Davy, it's bad enough to have the railroad run right through my place and cut it up, but I understand they are going to make a ' deposit ' on it, and blamed if I stand that." These are only a few of the earlier settlers, selected here and there from about over the three precincts, but they will serve as ensamples of the rest. They were much above the average " early settler " in point of intelligence, cultivation and wealth, and have left a healthy, brawny progeny behind them. Generally they were possessed of large numbers of negroes. who were made very serviceable in cultivating their large and productive farms, and when the war came on Christian County was one of the largest slave-holding counties in the State. The slaves were in the main well cared for, having comfortable houses, good and sufficient clothing and plenty of food. And as an evidence of this good treatment they were the happiest, best contented and most. docile race to be found on the globe. There were exceptional cases of abuse and ill-treatment, it is true, but in such cases the hard task-master was universally held up to public opprobrium. The brutal master was classed among the petty tyrants of a community, and held in as little esteem as a brutal father, a wife-beater et id genus omne. There can be no question of these facts,` and the candid historian must give them recognition. As to the questions of public policy and expediency involved in the sudden and wholesale liberation of the negroes among their former owners, only the future can determine. It is an open, unsolved problem as yet, and it remains to be seen what the solution shall be. That the whites have been materially advantaged by the change is generally conceded, but, on the other hand, there are grave doubts in the minds of many eminent publicists and humanitarians as to the betterment of the negroes themselves. As a political factor the negro has proved himself highly super-serviceable to the place-hunter and demagogue, thereby contributing much to the corruption of local and general politics, while as a social factor he has proved himself in every sense a pronounced and hopeless failure. So far the best efforts in his behalf by those who would elevate his condition morally as well as intellectually, have met with but poor encouragement. Left to himself and his own unbridled inclinations, he is peopling the land with a nation of bastards, wrapping himself in the loathsomeness of disease, and spreading foulness and contagion broadcast among his own kith and kindred. And the question. is, a most startling question, how far shall his example influence and corrupt those who were his whilom masters, and are his present employers ? The only possible solution of the whole question lies in his future mental, moral, if not social elevation, and it is the duty of every good citizen to heartily cooperate with well-directed effort to this end. With better methods backed by such co-operation, much may yet be done for the betterment of this helpless infant ward of the nation. Being almost universally slave-holders, and per consequence Southern in sentiment, when the war came the people in this portion of the county, as was natural, poured out their treasures most lavishly in defense of the Southern cause. Many of their best and bravest went out at the first sound of the tocsin of war, while others equally brave stayed behind to defend their homes and hearthstones. A few gallant spirits, it is true, went the other way, but the great bulk of her chivalry went into the Southern army. And what of the horrors, and sufferings, and sacrifices of those four years of bitter, deadly strife ? Was it all in vain ? No. Amid the wreck and waste of homes and fortunes they carved out for themselves a monument of most enduring fame. Though they did not conquer a peace they conquered the hearts of their enemies, and to-day they live embalmed in their love, admiration and esteem. Though at a fearful cost the lesson has been mutually salutary in this regard. With the return of peace came altered fortunes and relations to all. The negro dazed with the splendor of his new fortunes refused to work, while his former master stunned with the magnitude of his calamities sat down to mourn. No amount of persuasion or intimidation could get Sambo back to his hoe and plow, as no amount of convincing could rob him of his illusory hope of a mule and a hundred acres of land. Only the logic of hunger and pinching want was finally equal to the task of disillusion and persuasion. At first he worked by chores and jobs, and only as the real truth began to dawn on his mind, did he set about in earnest to try to earn " in the sweat of his brow," a daily subsistence for himself and family. The twenty years that have passed since then have served to convince both master and man of this one fact, at least, that they are mutually dependent upon each other, and what affects the one necessarily in a greater or less degree affects the other. But to recur to the early organization of society in this part of the county. At first there were but few schools taught in any of the rural districts, and in these only the rudimentary elements of an education were taught. Reading, writing and arithmetic, and seldom grammar or the higher branches were embraced in their curriculum. The term generally extended to the period of ten or eleven months, and in a majority of cases was all the schooling one received. The first school we have any account of was in the neighborhood of the first settlement on the place of Squire Hewlands. It was a common log-pen chinked and daubed, and stood in the woods on a hill on the old Nashville road. The door was of clapboards, the benches, slabs or puncheons with wooden legs, while the only light that ever smiled in upon the master and his pupils, was either through the wide open door, or a long narrow opening in the side of the pen made by cutting out a section of one or more of the logs. Here for four mortal hours at a stretch, with dangling feet and bowing backs day after day, the future Solons of the State drank in the wisdom of their well-thumbed books. One of the fiat teachers in this old uncomfortable structure was a man by the name of Brown. D. Brown, perhaps for " Done-Brown." That he was a good teacher and a rigid disciplinarian is about all that can be recalled of him. He taught somewhere about the years 1825-28, but as the building was even then some-hat ancient and dilapidated, it is but presumable that others had long before taught in it. The next one to preside over its fortunes and guide and train its callow minds, was one Isaac H. Evans. As early as 1530-33, one Tompkins, a Virginian, taught on David Kenner's place, and after him, one Hammond, about whose antecedents nothing is now known. This school was afterward moved to Madison Coleman's place on Montgomery Creek, where in 18335-36 it was taught by Isaac Clark. then by Joseph Bell. and then again by Hammond. Another school was taught about the same time, by Ned Rudder, a Virginian, on the Finch farm, three or four miles east of Pembroke. At quite an early day W. H. Tandy, an amiable man and a good teacher, taught at Salubria in the old Finley Schoolhouse, which was also at the same time used as a preaching point by Cumberland Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists. He was an excellent pedagogue, and taught for many years with great acceptability. He was succeeded, about 1841, by William Casky, now a distinguished minister in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, then by William Rayne, still of Salubria, James Weaver, Mrs. Harriet Noll, Albert Lindsey, and last, but not least, Prof. Hendrick. a noted educator. These are some among the earlier schools, and the highest evidence of their efficiency is to be found in the character and the intelligence of the few who remain who were taught by them. At present the number of good schools taught in these precincts has largely increased, and there is scarcely a neighborhood that cannot boast one or more. Among the early, adventurers into the wilds of south Christian, doubtless, came many who were professed followers of the meek and lowly Nazarene. and who, before leaving their homes in Virginia, North and South Carolina, and elsewhere, had attached themselves to one or other of the Evangelical churches. It is impossible now to tell which came first, or which at first preponderated, but probably the Baptists were first-that is, the Hard-shells, as there is a tradition of a church of that sect near James Davis' very early. which is noticed in a preceding chapter. One of the earlier organizations of the later Baptists of which we have any account is that at Pembroke, a sketch of which is appended, and the facts of which are furnished us by Mr. E. J. Murphy. Bethel Baptist Church.-This church was organized January ??, 1814, at Salubria Springs, with the following-named members: Benjamin Bradley, James Davis, James Hughes, William Tandy, Mills Tandy, John Pendleton, Vincent Snelling, John Jackson, Mary Bradley, Hannah T)avis, Sarah Hughes, Elizabeth Tandy, Frances Pendleton, Amelia Tandy and Mary Jackson. At first it was but an arm of the West Fork Church, but on the 22d of March, 1816, it was constituted by Elders Leonard Page, Reuben Ross, Jesse Brooks and several lay brethren an independent church. The present church edifice, built and dedicated in 182. stands on a lot of nine and a half acres of ground near the village of Pembroke. Though a large, commodious and comfortable house, the present membership has it in contemplation to build a more modern and tasty structure in the town near by, and will doubtless soon have it under way. The church also owns in Pembroke a comfortable parsonage with some three or four acres of ground attached. Among the pastors who have served this church are to be found the names of some eminently pious and good men, as will be seen from the following list: Elders William Tandy. J. M. Pendleton, Reuben Ross, J. 3I. Bennett, R. W. Morehead, George Hunt, T. G. Keen, E. N. Dickens and J. M. Peat'. The church is still in a very flourishing condition and has a large membership. At Salubria perhaps one of the first Cumberland Presbyterian churches in Christian County was organized. It dates back to the early times when the primitive Christians were too weak in numbers and means to afford church houses, and held their services in groves, arbors and private houses. It was a famous camp-meeting point for both Cumberlands and Methodists, and perhaps Baptists, though the latter had an organized church near by at Bethel, in which they worshiped. The first house of worship used by the Cumberlands here, it is said, was the Finley Schoolhouse, which was used by them in common with the other denominations, and which was afterward deeded to them by the owner, Finley. Finley or his legal representative had moved to Missouri or Texas, and one of their number went out there to secure the deed. The old log schoolhouse for many years stood on the same lot where now stands the present neat, attractive brick edifice. Among the first members of this church were Dr. Usher and his wife, and perhaps other members of his family, Rev. James Y. Barnett and wife, Henry Bollinger and wife, Fountain Clark and wife, Dr. and Mrs. Porter, Massie and wife, Mr. and Mrs. Louis Blethers, John, and perhaps Dabney Finley. Among the pastors who have ministered to this church may be mentioned James Y. Barnett. The names of the very early pastors, who, like the Methodists, itinerated from church to church and neighborhood to neighborhood, and who, doubtless, ministered at their family altars and in their camps and groves, it is to be regretted have not been obtained. The Salubria Methodist Episcopal Church South was organized at a very early day in Dr. Peyton Harrison's house. This was before the building of the schoolhouse on the Finley place, in which afterward they, in common with the other denominations, worshiped through the summer seasons. In the winter they would return to Dr. Harrison's more comfortable residence. and hold their regular meetings. The church as first organized consisted of the following members : Dr. Peyton Harrison, local preacher, Mrs. Dr. Peyton Harrison, James Cosley, an old bachelor, Mrs. John Lander, Joseph Williams, and a daughter, Mrs. Cobb, George Stevens. local preacher, Mrs. George Stevens, Mrs. Louisa Coleman, Mrs. A. Watson, Mrs. Patsey Kenner and Miss Sarah E. Lander, afterward Airs. William Payne. After worshiping in the schoolhouse as before mentioned for several years; Dr. Harrison gave them an eligible lot, and on it they soon had erected a very comfortable house of worship. The building is a. large frame. 40x50 feet, surrounded by a grove of noble oaks, and still stands a monument to the liberality of Dr. Harrison and a few others. The present membership numbers between ninety and 100. The present Superintendent of the Sunday-school, which holds its sessions through the summer months only, is William McRae. The present pastor of the church is Rev. Vol P. Thomas. The next church to organize was at Pembroke, and belonged to the Reformers. It was organized under the auspices of Elder John Furguson about 1849. Among its members were Dr. John Grubbs and wife. Mrs. Perrington, Patience and Nancy Perrington, Thomas Perrington, Dr. Samuel Grubbs, Thomas Grubbs; Joseph P. Grubbs, Taney Grubbs, Prof. I. B. Grubbs, William Harrison, AT. V. Metcalf, etc. Their present church edifice is a neat, commodious frame house, 35x50 feet, and capable of holding several hundred people. Among the pastors who have served the church to the present time are : Elders W. E. Mobley, Henry T. Anderson, Robert Dulin, J. W. Gant, McChesney, John T. .Johnson, Charles Day, J. C. Chastain, and J. W. Hardy. Present membership between seventy-five and eighty, and Elder Hardy is pastor. In the three precincts there are some seven or eight villages, St. Elmo, West Fork, Hinsleystown, Pembroke, Salubria. Fairview and Casky Station, neither of which with the exception of Pembroke contains more than a dozen or so of houses, a store or two, one or two churches, and as many shops of various kinds. Pembroke is a thriving little town of about 400 inhabitants, situated on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, ten miles south of Hopkinsville. Its founder was R. C. Jameson, who at first (about 1848-49) kept the postoffice in his private residence, but afterward built a storehouse at the junction of the Tobacco and Nashville roads to which be removed it. It has a score or more of business houses, a church, a flouring-mill, a planing-mill, two tobacco warehouses, a rehandling establishment, several shops, and last but not least two excellent schools. One of these, the Pembroke Male and Female Institute, is taught by Prof. E. J. Murphy, and has an average attendance of from thirty to forty pupils of both sexes ; the other is also a mixed school, taught by Prof. V. A. Garnett, who has about the same number of scholars. Both schools include in their curriculum, music, presided over by Mrs. Peay, and all the branches of a scientific and literary course. Of professional gentlemen, Pembroke boasts three lawyers, one of them an ex-State Senator, Hon. C. N. Pendleton, and seven physicians, Drs. W. H. Marshall, B. L. Leavell, J. 0. Brown, D. E. Bell, J. M. Robinson, and Robert and John Morrison. The town does a present business valued at$300,000, and gives promise of future and increased prosperity.

There are a number of excellent flouring-mills in the several precincts that do a large and flourishing business, but want of space forbids their mention. Like the other parts of southern Christian most of the lands are well adapted to the growth of corn and wheat, and keep the mills well supplied with "grist."

There are no special geological, topographical or agricultural features of these, that do not apply to all the other precincts of south Christian. The formations are of the "cavernous limestone " variety, the surface more or less undulating, and the soil generally adapted to the growth of all the cereals, tobacco, and the various grasses.

Casky Grange No. 88.-The following sketch of Casky Grange, No. 38, Patrons of Husbandry, was furnished for this work by Mr. Winston Henry. We give it in full:

" This Grange was granted a charter on November 4, 1873, and, as its number indicates, was one of the first in the State-the first one organized in Christian County. The charter members were the following
J. H. B. Vaughan, Winston Henry, S. G. Buckner, W. T. Radford, J. H. Lander, E. W. C. Edwards, Dr. J. P. Peyton, D. Al. Whitaker, Alex Campbell, James W. Fields, D. B. Bronaugh, Josiah Gray, Dr. E. R. Cook, L. Bowles, Edgar Bradshaw, James T. Garnett, Thomas Green, Mrs. S. H. Vaughan, Mrs. Mary B. Henry, Mrs. S. G. Buckner, Airs. W. T. Radford, Mrs. S. H. Peyton, Mrs. E. W. C. Edwards, Mrs. Edgar Bradshaw and Miss Lyda Garnett. On December 19, 1873, an election was held for officers to serve during 1874, and Thomas Green was chosen Master; S. G. Buckner, Overseer; Alex Campbell, Lecturer; D. B. Bronaugh, Steward; Edgar Bradshaw, Assistant Steward; James T. Garnett, Chaplain; Winston Henry, Treasurer; Dr. J. P. Peyton, Secretary ; J. H. Lander, Gatekeeper ; Airs. Peyton,Ceres ; Mrs. Buckner, Pomona ; Mrs. Radford, Flora; and Miss Lyda Garnett, Lady Assistant Steward.

" The year 1874 should be known in history as the Grange year. A regular boom was given the order. The entire time of the meetings was consumed in initiating members. Men and women did not wait to be persuaded, but rushed into the Grange without proper consideration. seeming to think that once within its gates all would be well. Sad disappointment awaited many farmers who had bright hopes of finding within the Grange a sure remedy for all the ills that farmers are heir to, forgetting that long years ago the first granger was informed that ' In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,' and when they discovered that the Grange was powerless to remove this stubborn fact, they became dissatisfied. During the fall of 1873 and spring of 1874 nineteen Granges were organized in Christian County. The membership of Casky Grange increased very rapidly, and at the end of the year 1874 numbered about one hundred.

The next year it began to decline, and in the fall of 1877 it had ceased to exist as a working Grange. The charter, seal and books were not returned to the State Grange, and after being dormant for several years was re-organized on January 11, 1881. Thomas Green was again elected Master, as on the first election ; Otho Graves was elected Overseer; G. V. Green, Lecturer; E. W. Walker, Steward; Edgar Bradshaw, Assistant Steward; R. F. Rives, Chaplain; D. M. Whitaker,
Treasurer; Winston Henry, Secretary; G. W. Bowles, Gatekeeper; Mrs. Sue Peyton, Ceres; Mrs. E. W. C. Edwards, Pomona : Mrs. James M. Clark, Flora; and Mrs. T. L. Graham, Stewardess. Twenty-five of the old members went into the re-organization, and the membership has increased to about one hundred.

During the summer of 1883 a lot was purchased and a substantial hall erected ; size of the building is twenty-eight feet wide by forty long, with ante-rooms; the cost of lot and building was about $900. " Casky Grange is located in one of the finest farming sections of Christian County, and embraces among its members the best class of farmers. There may be mentioned Mr. W. T. Radford. He is thought to be the largest wheat-grower in the State, his crop amounting some years to 15,000 bushels. Mr. R. F. Rives is a very enterprising granger; he makes wheat a specialty, and he is highly successful; has raised an average of twenty-six bushels per acre on 150 acres ; this includes about forty acres of corn land. The Garrotts, the Bradshaws, Thomas Green, E. W. Walker, J. M. Clark, Treasurer of the State Grange, and many others might be mentioned as owners of splendid farms, and grangers of great enterprise. Lyman McCombs, J. C. Boxley, Thomas L. Graham and others are establishing fine herds of short-horns. George V. Green owns a beautiful farm, splendidly improved, near Hopkinsville, and is the owner of as fine a herd of Jerseys as can be found in Kentucky. " The first stock and wool sale was held on June 7, 1883, and was a great success. About 225 head of stock, mostly cattle, and about 8,000 pounds of wool were sold. The amount of sale was over$7,000. These sales will be annual, and will be held hereafter on the last Thursday in May. The meetings of the Grange are held on the first and third Friday in each month. The officers for 1884 are: R. F. Rives, Master; Ed W. Walker, Overseer; Thomas Green, Lecturer; J. C. Boxley; Chaplain; J. J. Stuart, Steward; Walter Warfield, Assistant Steward; D. M. Whitaker, Treasurer; Winston Henry, Secretary; G. W. Bowles, Gatekeeper ; Mrs. Sue H. Peyton, Ceres ; Mrs. E. W. C. Edwards, Pomona ; Mrs. J. M. Clark, Flora; Mrs. T. L. Graham, Stewardess."-J. M. Tydings


text:
# DKGWEM-2020: GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SCIENCE IN DENMARK

January 31, 2020
Niels Bohr Institute
Europe/Copenhagen timezone

## *2nd meeting on GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SCIENCE IN DENMARK*

Artwork by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Corinne Mucha
Starts
Ends
Europe/Copenhagen
Niels Bohr Institute
Auditorium A
Blegdamsvej 17 DK-2100 Copenhagen

DKGWEM-2020: The LIGO and Virgo GW observatories are about to conclude their third observing run (O3), after which they will be subject to major upgrades. At this meeting we will discuss what we have learned so far during O1, O2 (and maybe O3) from GWs and EM counterparts, as well as discuss what we hope to observe and learn in the near future.

One of the main purposes of the event is to provide a venue for GW/EM researchers currently based in Denmark to interact with each other. We naturally hope this will foster new ideas and collaborations between groups.

NOTE: The deadline for registration has been extended to January 10, 2020.


text:
# Endlicher Körper/25/Multiplikationstafel

Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen
 ${\displaystyle \cdot }$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 0}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+2}$ ${\displaystyle x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 3x}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+4}$ ${\displaystyle x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 4}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+3}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+1}$ ${\displaystyle x}$ ${\displaystyle 1}$ ${\displaystyle 4x}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+4}$ ${\displaystyle 2x+3}$ ${\displaystyle x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3}$ ${\displaystyle 4x+2}$ ${\displaystyle 3x+1}$ ${\displaystyle 2x}$ ${\displaystyle x+4}$


text:
## Chemistry: Molecular Approach (4th Edition)

1 km = 0.62137 mi 1 L = 0.26417 gal Using dimensional analysis gives: $(17 \times 0.62137) / (1 \times 0.26417) = 40 miles / gallon$
1 km = 0.62137 mi 1 L = 0.26417 gal Using dimensional analysis gives: $(17 \times 0.62137) / (1 \times 0.26417) = 40 miles / gallon$


text:
# crack the key or not: generated key

Let $T \in F^{n \times n}$ , $F$ be a field

Let $U_1, U_2 \in F^{n \times n}$ be randomly chosen by user 1 resp. user 2.

user1 sends $U_1\cdot T$ to user2 , user2 sends $T\cdot U_2$ to user1 .

Both are now able to compute the secret key $K=U_1\cdot T\cdot U_2$ .

Exercise: Compute $K$ in polynomial time (in the size of the matrix ring) or prove that the protocol is secure!

My tries:

Computing the inverse is a polynomial thing, at least in $n$. Gauss elimination does it in $O(n^3)$ But what's the difference to polynomial time "in size of the matrix ring" ?

Well I can not compute $K$ by inverting $U_1\cdot T$ which has $T^{-1}\cdot U_1^{-1}$ as inverse. Then if I combine this one with any $T\cdot U_2$ or $U_2^{-1}\cdot T^{-1}$ I do not get a reasonable result. Well okay I can get

$U_2^{-1}\cdot T^{-1}\cdot U_1\cdot T$ but what does it help?

Does anyone of you see an ansatz? Would you prove the communication here to be secure and how would one do that?

Regards

• Presumably we are to compute $R$, not $K$. Is $T$ public? If not, how do the users get it? – Ross Millikan Oct 31 '13 at 21:06
• If the user knows $T$, why not compute $T^{-1}$ and then $U_1*T*T^{-1}*T*U_2$? – DKal Oct 31 '13 at 21:11
• What is $T$? A (randomly chosen) shared secret between user1 and user2 or a public constant? – Magdiragdag Oct 31 '13 at 21:20
• This reminds me of HDCP. Crosby at al. have done a cryptanalysis. – ccorn Oct 31 '13 at 21:25
• If $T$ were public, $K$ could be computed as noted in @DKal's comment. Therefore I suppose that $T$ is not known to the eavesdropper. In the context of this question however $T$ is a secret shared between user$_1$ and user$_2$. – ccorn Nov 2 '13 at 9:49


text:
# An Alloy of Pleasures

REVIEW: The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, edited by Richard Dawkins. Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-921680-2. A PDF copy of this review is available here.

PRELUDE

During the Christmas holidays last year, my mother and I were visiting a bookshop, and we passed by a display of general-audience science books. As a child, I had devoured such things, and propelled by sentiment mixed with curiosity, I looked over the titles, browsing for ones which I’d seen recommended or were written by authors I knew. Momentarily, however, a harsh edge cut through my sentimental reverie. “Look at this,” I said. “This book props up its thesis with phony numbers and citations which point to papers that don’t even discuss what the book says they do! And this one, here, tells a version of 1990s physics history which, to put it mildly, doesn’t match up with what other physicists remember. Oh, and this author, well, everybody is just astonished at how the clarity of his thinking implodes halfway through, when he stops thinking and starts faith-ing. And what’s this — quantum healing?

If the Gentle Reader were to deduce a “moral” from the story, it might be that I am a cantankerous individual with an acerbic disposition, and the reader would not be gravely in error. Beyond that, one could say that a science education nearly killed the general-interest bookshelf for me, and what University did not do, the science-blogging world definitely tried to finish. Caught up in this electronic tangle of opinions, discoveries and arguments, where new findings and reactions to them are all free for the taking, I’d seen the flaws of a great many books exposed. Precisely because online science writing makes irascible iconoclasm a way of life, though, it teaches the joy of discourse and the admiration of written words which, finally, work. Both of these aspects play into the value of The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, edited by Richard Dawkins.

This book collects passages written by seventy-nine scientists over the previous hundred years; though Dawkins himself has more than proven his talents as an expositor, his own writings are confined to introductory remarks giving context for each selection. Biology is represented quite strongly, and physics makes a good showing. Astronomy, other than the cosmological variety, makes mostly cameo appearances, and chemistry seems rather the poor stepchild. (Max Perutz, a Nobel Laureate, contributes a bit on X-ray crystallography which is largely an admiring biographical sketch of fellow laureate Dorothy Hodgkin, and the well-known neurologist Oliver Sacks is roped in to give a quirky reminiscence about tungsten! Primo Levi‘s tale of a carbon atom, though, is not to be missed.) Truly commendable is Dawkins’s inclusion of mathematics, a subject which provokes an unnatural fear even in literate readers who appreciate science and enjoy reading about the latest fossil or the most newly discovered extra-solar planet. The selections chosen for The Oxford Book are clear, memorable and not infrequently poetic. Upon occasion, they deliver on that great promise of science education: to provoke the learner into seeing the natural world and the products of the human mind in a new and unforgettable light. After reading what Stephen Jay Gould wrote about Charles Darwin‘s take on the humble earthworm, for example, it is difficult to see in the same way such a simple thing as worms coming out on a pavement after the rain.

The Oxford Book would serve as an excellent smÃ¶rgÃ¥sbord of introductions for the reader who has grown interested in science but doesn’t know where to begin. Likewise, those who catch the biggest headlines and read about the flashiest new breakthroughs will likely benefit from a book about science which has stood the test of time, about discoveries which have kept on inducing breathlessness for several decades. A specialist trained in one scientific field could also enjoy an interlude of lateral thought, poking into a new domain of learning to flex the thought-muscles.

When I’ve heard people talk about a movie or a book being “an unalloyed pleasure,” they mean it to be joy without stopping, all good and nothing bad. Given that an alloy is a mixture of metals, the phrase also carries a trace contamination of the idea that the book or the movie being talked about only offers one kind of goodness — all drama and no comedy, let’s say. Consequently, I find myself describing The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing as an alloyed pleasure, a mixture of different satisfactions, in unequal amounts. The amazing facts, the flashes of wit, the moments of rapturous wonder are all there to be had, but Dawkins has also provided a series of portals to debate. I’m not talking about a nasty kind of political infighting, with accusations and character assassination, but rather the academic version of the same process: the rolling up of sleeves, the setting down of the teacup and the declaration of intellectual combat.

The book club meetings for this volume can, and should, be. . . volatile places.

SINS OF SCIENCE WRITING

A science book can go bad in several ways. First, and most obviously, it can be just plain wrong. The bilious denials of evolution turned out by creationist frauds qualify most excellently in this department. Second, a book can grow out of date; indeed, the very nature of the scientific process makes this an occupational hazard in the expository profession. Also, a book can purport to set out the facts but in reality be an exercise in polemic, substituting spin for science or making emotional appeals where evidence is required. More subtle, but upon occasion just as pernicious, is when an author presents the right facts in the wrong context, making an ordinary workaday development out to be a revolution or presenting a tentative proposition as incontrovertible. It’s easier to tell a stock “human interest” story than it is to present a detailed finding correctly.

Nothing in The Oxford Book struck me as horrifyingly wrong — as befits its pedigree, it comes nowhere near creationist-caliber wrongness. Now and again, the selections dated themselves: we know more about photosynthesis than we did when Primo Levi wrote his prose poem about carbon, for example, and Loren Eiseley’s “How Flowers Changed the World” mentions the extinction of the dinosaurs but hails from a time more than twenty years before Luis Alvarez and company even proposed the asteroid-impact explanation.

Dawkins is often conscientious about indicating when an idea described in an excerpt is contested or poorly established. He leans on Roger Penrose to explain Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, but he observes that Penrose’s pet proposals about human consciousness are “controversial, not to say eccentric,” and the anthology doesn’t bother to quote them. This, I’d wager, is putting it mild compared to the responses one could elicit from other quarters, but a full explanation of the controversy would entail lessons in quantum physics and computer science both. While the Gentle Reader doubtless has sufficient patience for such an excursion, the window in which I am typing these words may be too narrow to contain it. Suffice to say that Penrose has found a peculiar way to conclude that computers can never match the powers of the human mind, by esteeming computers poorly and humans too well. To resolve what others see as a non-problem, he invokes quantum physics, but not just quantum physics: rather than saying that the human brain supports the kind of quantum computation which physicists and engineers are currently trying to implement, using the rules of quantum behavior we already understand, Penrose’s formulation requires a new kind of trans-quantum physics with extra-spooky powers that let it beat Gödel. (Physicists are typically leery of inventing new fundamental postulates to account for a phenomenon — like human thought — which has only been observed in an infinitesimal fraction of the Universe.) Likewise, the suggestions for specific structures within brain cells which could support quantum computation, whether regular or the hypothetical trans-Gödelian kind, have essentially tanked.

Similarly, the second selection in the book comes from Just Six Numbers (1999), a physics popularization by Martin Rees whose title refers to six “fundamental constants” of Nature. We know the values of these numbers, and we have to plug them into our equations for the fundamental physical laws, but we don’t know why they have the values that they do. Dawkins notes, “They are just there; and many physicists, including Rees himself (though not, for example, Victor Stenger, a physicist for whom I also have a very high regard) believe that their precise values are crucial to the existence of a universe capable of producing biological evolution of some kind.” The subtleties in this question are manifold, and by turns fascinating and exasperating. First of all, why six numbers? A reckoning made by physicist John Baez finds twenty more! What’s going on here?

The excerpt which Dawkins picked out discusses one particular number, the ratio of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force. Of the four basic forces of Nature, these are the two whose effects can extend over distances larger than an atomic nucleus. Rees compares them by taking the ratio of the electrical repulsion between two protons and the gravitational attraction between the same two protons. Because both the electrical repulsion (remember, like charges repel) and the gravitational attraction depend in the same way on distance, that distance dependence drops out of the ratio. It works out that the force of gravity pulling the proton masses together is weaker than the electrical drive pushing them apart by ten to the thirty-sixth power, the figure which Rees calls $N$.

But waitaminnit! The strength of a gravitational pull depends on the mass which is doing the pulling (remember those astronauts jumping around on the Moon?). What if the proton had a different mass — wouldn’t the ratio between electric and gravitational forces then turn out different? Where does the proton mass come from, anyway?

If you’ve been reading the news, you’ll be jumping up now and screaming, “The Higgs boson!” (If you’ve been hanging around science blogs too long, you’ll even scream with a built-in hyperlink.) Yes, thanks to the Large Hadron Collider, the Higgs is all over the Net these days; physicists are looking for it, in part, to explain why particles have the masses they do. But that’s not the whole story:

The Higgs mechanism gives mass to elementary particles, but the proton and neutron are not elementary. The majority of their mass comes from the forces binding their constituent quarks together! By Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, if you want your quarks to be localized in a tiny space, their momentum has to be, well, uncertain: the more you squeeze the possible places a quark can be, the more possibilities its momentum will “want” to explore. But if there’s a chance for the momentum to be large, that means there’s a chance the energy is large, and in relativity, energy and mass are interconvertible — remember Einstein’s $E = mc^2$? So, having an attractive force bind three quarks together into a proton means that the proton will necessarily have mass, even if the quarks inside have none!

Thus, we can change our perspective, and instead of asking why gravity is so weak, ask instead why typical masses are so small. A conclusive answer to that will require finding the Higgs, or showing that the Higgs doesn’t exist and finding whatever goes in its place. (As Baez points out, twenty-two of the twenty-six parameters he regards as “fundamental” relate to the Higgs and how it interacts with other particles.) Then we have to consider the binding forces which also contribute to the masses of composite particles, and the parameters which describe them. And it’s by taking combinations of these quantities that we get down to Rees’s “just six numbers.” The ratio $N$ must depend on the strong-force coupling constant, the masses of the up- and down-quarks inside the proton, the expectation value of the Higgs field. . . you get the idea.

Whether other values of the “Rees six” or the “Baez twenty-six” could yield Universes which might contain life, evolution and intelligence — well, that’s a tough one, and the fairest answer is probably we just don’t know. One might also ask, justifiably, “Even knowing these twenty-six different numbers, we have to have equations to plug them into! Why do the equations have the forms that they do? Could altogether different sets of formulas also describe Universes with life in them?” Arguments can be made to that effect, but again, admitting ignorance might be the better part of intellectual valor.

A PUZZLE REGARDING SELECTION

So far, I’ve addressed points where, in my view, Dawkins edited as a good editor should. However, one selection has perplexed me, and after rereading and rethinking, I cannot shake the impression that Dawkins choose poorly. The passage in question comes from Robert Trivers’s book Social Evolution (1985) and is called “The Group Selection Fallacy.”

Ever since Darwin, biologists have tried to explain how social behaviors — cooperation, even self-sacrifice — could emerge from natural selection, which seems to embody a dog-eat-dog, dog-eat-cat world. What follows here is a physicists’ caricature of an ongoing biological debate, one whose description this particular physics boffin has botched before, so reader, beware.

One explanation for how evolution could yield altruism, popular up through the 1950s, went something like this: imagine a species divided into several smaller sub-populations, like flocks or wandering herds. Some of the herds might be full of selfish individuals who act without regard to others in their vicinity, but other sub-populations might be full of altruists, whose cooperative behavior allows those sub-populations to produce more sub-populations, also full of altruists. If something in the environment kills off sub-populations, then the clusters of altruists will produce more offspring clusters than those comprised of selfish individuals, and this non-random survival of randomly varying replicators — in this case, the replicating units being taken as clusters — will lead to a species dominated by altruists.

On a first hearing, it sounds like a neat idea. But in the real world, it runs into problems: populations aren’t rigidly divided, and instead, individuals flow through whatever demarcations you’d care to draw. Forces which kill off entire clusters at one go aren’t so easy to come by. And the whole process is vulnerable to cheaters: a selfish mutant surrounded by altruists can benefit from the others’ hard work. (The one organism which doesn’t jump off the cliff would, you’d think, have a better shot at spreading its genes all throughout its species.)

For a while, “group selection” was the default explanation for cooperative behaviors. For example, in the early 1960s the zoologist V. C. Wynne-Edwards compiled a thick volume documenting how different species use signaling mechanisms to determine their population density and, effectively, figure out how crowded the living situation is. Introducing the compendium, he said that group selection would have to be the explanation for these observations, since, well, that’s how cooperative behaviors are explained. The responsibility of later generations is to separate the observations — on the aggressive behaviors of red grouse, the wintering habits of monarch butterflies, the roosting of starlings and so forth — from the explanation which was, in its time, superseded.

During this time, great advances were made in genetics: DNA was found to be the genetic material, the mapping from DNA sequences to protein sequences was unraveled, and — most crucially for this discussion — knowledge of genetics was combined with the principle of natural selection. Dawkins sets up this part of the story well, by quoting from George C. Williams:

Socrates consisted of the genes his parents gave him, the experiences they and his environment later provided, and a growth and development mediated by numerous meals. For all I know, he may have been very successful in the evolutionary sense of leaving numerous offspring. His phenotype, nevertheless, was utterly destroyed by the hemlock and has never since been duplicated.

The extract from Williams’s Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) goes on to emphasize that the adaptations yielded by evolution must benefit genes, since all else dissolves, and only genes preserve an identity. (An ecologist might argue that organisms don’t just inherit shuffled copies of their parents’ genes, but also the environment which their parents’ generation produced. A developmental biologist might insist that genes do not directly yield behaviors, but rather, they code for proteins which mediate the expression of other genes in a mosh pit of biochemical interaction, unleashing patterns of cell growth which eventually unfold to form bodily structures which then exhibit ranges of behavior. What counts as a “gene” for a population biologist might be an assemblage of different DNA sequences, each one of which a biochemist might call a “gene” — coding genes, non-coding genes, promoter genes, overlapping genes, Mexican jumping genes. . . . The simplest solution might be to go mad. But never mind all that now!)

How does this help us understand why one organism might give up its own chances at reproduction in order to help another? Well, take a gene’s-eye view: copies of many of my particular genetic variants will be sitting inside the cells of my close relatives. So, as far as my genes are concerned, if my relatives survive, that’s almost as good as my surviving. (If I live in a population which is scattered across a geographical region, and movement is limited, then I don’t even need to go to the trouble of recognizing who’s kin to me, since odds are, just about everybody I meet will be related to me at least moderately closely.)

Now, being an outsider to the whole biology profession, I’d like to be able to quote a biologist on this. Preferably a classic statement by a well-known biologist. . . wait, I’ve got this anthology of modern science writing, sitting right here! What does Robert Trivers say about how “kin selection” works?

Most examples of altruism can easily be explained by some benefit to kin or return benefit to the altruist, but these explanations were not well developed until the 1960’s and ’70’s.

Fin.

The passage chosen from Trivers doesn’t actually explain these “benefit to kin” or “return benefit to the altruist” ideas. Instead, we read at some length about how group selection dilutes the potency of the Darwinian insight, and how biologists might have embraced group selection because it was more difficult to read “Social Darwinism” implications in it. But it is Nature who determines how widely applicable the Darwinian insight is, and Social Darwinism is fraught with so many flaws that if TwenCen biologists felt intimidated by it, well, so much the worse for them. Scientific arguments against group selection get three sentences out of as many pages.

The perplexity I felt upon first reading this selection grew, by fits and jumps, into a detectable irritation. After building up the case for a gene-centered view of evolution, when three pages on kin selection would be natural and almost necessary — say, a showcase of how benefit to kin can explain a particular, memorable observation — we tumble into a polemic which speculates about the sociology of scientists and makes only a glancing brush with scientific knowledge!

Arguments over the various proposed explanations for altruism are beyond the scope of this essay. They have featured strong personalities and biting condemnations; too often, they are complicated by confused terminology and failures of interdisciplinary communication. Field biologists argue with computer modelers who argue with microbiology experimentalists, while physicists fool themselves into thinking they can make real contributions, when in fact their points were made by ecologists years before. Some of the things called group selection are proven to be mathematically equivalent to some of the things called kin selection. Perhaps, stochastically, progress is made. I would have been happier if Dawkins had chosen a passage which explained biology rather than taking pot-shots at biologists; however, seeing that I’ve spent all this time talking about it, the Gentle Reader might infer that I inwardly enjoy doing so. As I said, The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing provides an alloy of pleasures.

MATHEMATICS

As indicated above, Dawkins includes mathematics in the sciences which his anthology samples. Some of the topics have a distinctly philosophical flavor (Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem), while others have great historical significance (Cantor’s hierarchy of infinities, the transcendence of $\pi$ and the irrationality of $\sqrt{2}$), and some, like Shannon’s theory of information, see a great deal of practical use. Reading The Oxford Book will not turn the student into a practicing mathematician, nor will it directly build fluency in the mathematical tools used in scientific practice. However, as antidotes to the fear of mathematics induced by traumatic schoolhouse experiences, these selections are superb.

I should pull out one mathematical item for special consideration, as it is both a historical classic and, in regrettable consequence, one of the places where the age of the writing shows. Dawkins reproduces Martin Gardner’s October 1970 column in Scientific American, the one which introduced Conway’s Game of Life to the unsuspecting public. (For some reason I do not fathom, Dawkins cites Wolfram’s doorstopper as a viable reference on the kind of “emergence” which Life makes so entrancing. The meme of citing Wolfram’s name in this regard exhibits a fascinating infectiousness.) Gardner’s article has provoked almost forty years of madness and intricate beauty. So much has been said about Life elsewhere that I have little to observe here, except to note an item which perhaps should have been clarified in the context-setting material. Back in 1970, Gardner wrote,

Conway conjectures that no pattern can grow without limit. Put another way, any configuration with a finite number of counters cannot grow beyond a finite upper limit to the number of counters on the field. This is probably the deepest and most difficult question posed by the game. Conway has offered a prize of \$50 to the first person who can prove or disprove the conjecture before the end of the year. One way to disprove it would be to discover patterns that keep adding counters to the field: a ‘gun’ (a configuration that repeatedly shoots out moving objects such as the ‘glider’, to be explained below) or a ‘puffer train’ (a configuration that moves but leaves behind a trail of ‘smoke’).

Bill Gosper of MIT led a team which found a “glider gun” and made the result public in November, 1970. Gosper later discovered a puffer train, as well.

Dawkins chose to anthologize portions of the paper in which Alan Turing proposed what we now call the Turing Test. Leaving out Turing would be a sin of the first magnitude, and I suppose it’s a bit of a crapshoot whether one decides to include the Test or the Machines. The former is our classic criterion for telling whether an artificial intelligence is thinking like a human, and the latter is a type of abstract device which lets us talk mathematically about what computation really is. Losing the Turing Machines is a sad occasion, since via the halting problem they provide a smooth path to Gödel, while behind the scenes they’re joining forces with the cellular automata, because a Universal Turing Machine can be built in Conway’s Game. Every now and then, I wonder if, somewhere else in the multiverse of possibilities which string theory seems to permit, two-dimensional creatures with cellular-automaton brains made of a hundred trillion glider guns each are going about their Flatlander business and philosophizing about the impossibility of three-dimensional life. . . .

CONCLUSION

I’m glad the world has this book in it. A book for the present day, The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing is informative and inspiring, a departure point for new exploration. Far better to have it in hand and use it to anchor those discussions than to let its possibilities go to waste.

The volume ends on a note which had to have been deliberately chosen to soar. Like the conclusion of Yes, Virginia or Dark Side of the Moon, if it doesn’t encompass absolutely everything, it’s not for lack of trying. The final entry is taken from Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot (1994), and reproduces his famous contemplation on the picture Voyager 1 returned, showing Earth from six billion kilometers away — just a point, filling less than a pixel in Voyager‘s camera, almost lost in an accidental ray of scattered sunlight. A more recent photograph from the Cassini probe revisited the same theme: passing behind the planet Saturn in September 2005, Cassini saw the ringed world backlit by the Sun, a view which Earthbound astronomers could only glimpse in imagination. Seeing Cassini‘s pictures is to think, how clever we are, for sending our servant so far.

But the image has a flipside as well, a consequence of geometry: Earth is always much closer to the Sun than Saturn is, so to look towards the Sun from Saturn is to look in Earth’s direction as well. And there, seemingly floating among Saturn’s outer rings, is Earth, 1.5 billion kilometers distant. Just a touch of color, with the faintest trace of the Moon visible on close magnification — that’s Cassini‘s home, and ours. In the years since Carl Sagan died, it has been perhaps the clearest example of a moment when those whose lives he touched all knew, “Carl would have loved that.” From the vantage point our curiosity and our ingenuity have afforded us, we again look back to the world where we evolved, the world we share with untold millions of kindred species, the world beyond which we have never made a permanent home.

Again, we reflect: On this planet, a pixel across and a hyperlink in circumference, have lived every pacifist and every war criminal; every saint, prophet and demagogue; every parent and grandparent; every child lost to a preventable disease and every victim of natural catastrophe; everyone who has ever claimed to know divine will, and everyone condemned as heretic and infidel; every advocate of group selection or kin selection; everyone who has wanted to defang science for the swing voters or unleash it as a cleansing fire; all your ancestors and all of mine — all of them, all of us, spending our brief lives to contend for splinters of the infinitesimal. It is good to be a part of understanding Nature, however much we can, here on this place which might be mistaken for a moon, or a lost lump of methane ice.

## 10 thoughts on “An Alloy of Pleasures”

1. dileffante says:

I think this is the first time I come back to a post (which I had printed out for reading) just to say “I loved this post”. Well, there it goes: I loved this post. Thank you.

2. manigen says:

I think that posts like this are the main reason I read this blog; that was a great review and a great post in its own right.

I’ll buy the book just as soon as I’m finished with Arthur Allen’s Vaccine.

3. I’m glad you enjoyed it. Oxford UP was extremely kind and sent me a review copy, so I hope they got their money’s worth!

4. Yes, this may have been the most extensive and enjoyable book review I’ve read that wasn’t contained in a publicaion with “New York” in its title. I’ll definitely have to pick this up.

Comment#1: I totally agree about the group selecton thing. Why did everyone suddenly decide it was worthless, just because antoher plausible explanation arose?

Comment#2: You don’t think Wolfram played an important role popularizing and classifying cellular automata?

Comment#3: I agree about Turing: the artifical intelligence test is a neat idea, but in my opinion it only tests how well you can fake intelligence. The abstract model of the computer is undoubtedly Turing’s more enduring contribution.

5. Again, many thanks!

Reply to #1: I think there were enough problems with the “old group selection” of Wynne-Edwards and earlier — instability against cheating, and such — that embracing a more robust explanation was a sensible thing to do. The error, perhaps, was in letting the tar applied to the explanation spread to observations associated with it; proposing other, somewhat related ideas about evolution under the same name was probably also a mistake.

Reply to #2: Well, notice that Gardner made Conway’s Game of Life into a craze twelve years before Wolfram was even getting up to speed! I’m not knowledgeable enough to speak about the merit which his rule-classification scheme enjoys in the computer science world; my impression has been that people mention his classification scheme, note that Rule 110 supports universal computation and then move on with their lives. Nowadays, it seems, theoretical computer scientists don’t think that looking for the tiniest automata which support Turing completeness actually tells you very much about computation. Of course, we couldn’t know this without doing the work first.

Wolfram certainly played a role in getting ideas out into the Zeitgeist (this is where I feel I should make a self-deprecating joke about the memetic climate among mind-proud individuals who don’t get out very much: the zit-geist?). Whether the ideas he spread were mostly correct or freakishly distorted is a more difficult question. Arguably, he succeeded in convincing the literate public that quotidian ideas are revolutionary, and fringe speculations are solid knowledge.

All in all, I just wish Dawkins had pointed his readers to a different book for their further enrichment. Fame is no guarantee of utility.

I would reply to point #3, but since both of us are only visible as text strings, nobody can tell if we’re just faking intelligence, so why bother? ;-)

6. dileffante says:

Though I wasn’t asked, I may throw my 2 cents on Ben’s point #2, since cellular automata are my main area of research. My impression is that Wolfram’s impact has been negative rather than positive; when serious people see a call to rebuild science on a CA basis, coming from a megalomaniac maverick who doesn’t even acknowledge prior work by others, they are more likely to steer away than to follow. I blame on him most of the CA-crap I find on the web; the real research was started before he came in, went on without him, and was not impacted at all by his latest doorstopper. Yes, the volume he edited in the 80s was (and remains) an important reference, his numbering scheme became a standard and his pseudo-classification scheme was influential (motivating people to look for real classifications). All that said, I guess that the reason for the “fascinating infectiousness” of citing Wolfram is the lack of alternatives that are as conspicuos and as comprehensive; however, better science writing can be found in Holland’s books, or Morovitz’s, or wikipedia, for that matter.

7. John Phillips, FCD says:

Thanks for the review, looks like a book I must treat myself to, yet another one :)

8. Thanks, dileffante. I’ll take that answer as fairly definitive, coming from an actual CA researcher.

Amusingly, I was invited by a friend to attend Wolfram’s “Summer School in the New Kind of Science” (NKS for short.) I can only imagine what that entails.

9. Hi Blake,

I’m glad this was included in the Carnival; I had read the first half of this last week (enough to make me resolve to get the book) but was interrupted and never managed to come back to it. Thankfully, with the Carnival pointing me here I was able to finish it this time.

Most excellent.

A number of the pieces you describe I have already read in one place or another, but it will be nice to have them together as a collection.


text:
# Kang, Chongqing

2017
Xinyu Chen, Michael B. McElroy, and Chongqing Kang. 2017. “Integrated energy systems for higher wind penetration in China: Formulation, implementation, and impacts.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 33, 2, Pp. 1309-1319. Publisher's VersionAbstract
With the largest installed capacity in the world, wind power in China is experiencing a ∼20% curtailment. The inflexible combined heat and power (CHP) has been recognized as the major barrier for integrating the wind source. The approach to reconcile the conflict between inflexible CHP units and variable wind power in Chinese energy system is yet un-clear. This paper explores the technical and economic feasibility of deploying the heat storage tanks and electric boilers under typical power grids and practical operational regulations. A mixed integer linear optimization model is proposed to simulate an integrated power and heating energy systems, including a CHP model capable of accounting for the commitment decisions and non-convex energy generation constraints. The model is applied to simulate a regional energy system (Jing-Jin-Tang) covering 100-million population, with hourly resolution over a year, incorporating actual data and operational regulations. The results project an accelerating increase in wind curtailment rate at elevated wind penetration. Investment for wind breaks-even at 14% wind penetration. At such penetration, the electric boiler (with heat storage) is effective in reducing wind curtailment. The investment in electric boilers is justified on a social economic basis, but the revenues for different stakeholders are not distributed evenly.
2016
Ning Zhang, Xi Lu, Chris P Nielsen, Michael B. McElroy, Xinyu Chen, Yu Deng, and Chongqing Kang. 2016. “Reducing curtailment of wind electricity in China by employing electric boilers for heat and pumped hydro for energy storage.” Applied Energy, 184, Pp. 987-994. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Accommodating variable wind power poses a critical challenge for electric power systems that are heavily dependent on combined heat and power (CHP) plants, as is the case for north China. An improved unit-commitment model is applied to evaluate potential benefits from pumped hydro storage (PHS) and electric boilers (EBs) in West Inner Mongolia (WIM), where CHP capacity is projected to increase to 33.8 GW by 2020. A business-as-usual (BAU) reference case assumes deployment of 20 GW of wind capacity. Compared to BAU, expanding wind capacity to 40 GW would allow for a reduction in CO2 emissions of 33.9 million tons, but at a relatively high cost of US$25.3/ton, reflecting primarily high associated curtailment of wind electricity (20.4%). A number of scenarios adding PHS and/or EBs combined with higher levels of wind capacity are evaluated. The best case indicates that a combination of PHS (3.6 GW) and EBs (6.2 GW) together with 40 GW of wind capacity would reduce CO2 emissions by 43.5 million tons compared to BAU, and at a lower cost of US$16.0/ton. Achieving this outcome will require a price-incentive policy designed to ensure the profitability of both PHS and EB facilities.

2014
Xi Lu, Michael B. McElroy, Xinyu Chen, and Chongqing Kang. 2014. “Opportunity for offshore wind to reduce future demand for coal-fired power plants in China with consequent savings in emissions of CO2.” Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 24, Pp. 14764–14771. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Although capacity credits for wind power have been embodied in power systems in the U.S. and Europe, the current planning framework for electricity in China continues to treat wind power as a non-dispatchable source with zero contribution to firm capacity. This study adopts a rigorous reliability model for the electric power system evaluating capacity credits that should be recognized for offshore wind resources supplying power demands for Jiangsu, China. Jiangsu is an economic hub located in the Yangtze River delta accounting for 10% of the total electricity consumed in China. Demand for electricity in Jiangsu is projected to increase from 331 TWh in 2009 to 800 TWh by 2030. Given a wind penetration level of 60% for the future additional Jiangsu power supply, wind resources distributed along the offshore region of five coastal provinces in China (Shandong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang and Fujian) should merit a capacity credit of 12.9%, the fraction of installed wind capacity that should be recognized to displace coal-fired systems without violating the reliability standard. In the high-coal-price scenario, with 60% wind penetration, reductions in CO2 emissions relative to a business as usual reference could be as large as 200.2 million tons of CO2 or 51.8% of the potential addition, with a cost for emissions avoided of $29.0 per ton. Xinyu Chen, Xi Lu, Michael B. McElroy, Chris P Nielsen, and Chongqing Kang. 2014. “Synergies of wind power and electrified space heating: A case study for Beijing.” Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 3, Pp. 2016–2024. Publisher's VersionAbstract Demands for electricity and energy to supply heat are expected to expand by 71% and 47%, respectively, for Beijing in 2020 relative to 2009. If the additional electricity and heat are supplied solely by coal as is the current situation, annual emissions of CO2 may be expected to increase by 59.6% or 99 million tons over this interval. Assessed against this business as usual (BAU) background, the present study indicates that significant reductions in emissions could be realized using wind-generated electricity to provide a source of heat, employed either with heat pumps or with electric thermal storage (ETS) devices. Relative to BAU, reductions in CO2 with heat pumps assuming 20% wind penetration could be as large as 48.5% and could be obtained at a cost for abatement of as little as$15.6 per ton of avoided CO2. Even greater reductions, 64.5%, could be realized at a wind penetration level of 40% but at a higher cost, \$29.4 per ton. Costs for reduction of CO2 using ETS systems are significantly higher, reflecting the relatively low efficiency for conversion of coal to power to heat.