text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in 21st century advertising

Introduction
With the advent of the 21st-century came the popularization of social media. It rendered the traditional form of mass advertising redundant, changing the way advertisers communicate with the market. Big data mining and analytics allow advertisers to precisely target audience and optimise reach. However, advertising is increasingly perceived by the public as a distortion of reality; something not to be believed, and in this chapter, we look into the truth and ethics behind this modern form of advertising from the perspectives of three disciplines: Psychology, Economics, and Philosophy, seeking to find common ground between the clashing ideas.

Psychology's Discourse on Advertising's Truth
Today, numerous firms propose similar products and services, consequently standing out is the key to success. According to psychologist Harry Hollingworth, to produce efficient advertisements, firms need to capture the consumer’s attention, make a lasting impression, and motivate them to buy. The consumer's willingness to purchase a good or service will depend on their idea of the product, how they identify with it, and their confidence in the expected benefit. The consumer is convinced of the truthfulness of the advertisements promoting the merits of the product(s), and this trust is key to ensuring customer satisfaction and loyalty. The understanding of psychological elements enhances the precision of targeted advertising.

Psychologists have developed approaches to influence customer perceptions through advertising. Harlow Gale's theory focused on how colours and designs affect customers’ decision-making. Walter Dill Scott discovered that people form categories of mental images according to their dominating sense, so advertisers would need to refer to all the senses to appeal to each person. His theory is based on suggestion, mental imagery, perception, emotion, and memory applied to advertising.

According to psychologist Gary Lupyan, perceptions aren't objectively true because they are shaped by our past experiences, needs, values, and expectations. As a result, perceptions are subjective to each person. For marketers, consumers' perceptions are of more value than their knowledge of objective reality.

Our perceptions are shaped by the marketer's willingness to create a need and make people buy. Customers’ perceptions of the marketed product do not necessarily reflect reality, since they are provoked and conditioned by marketers. This approach to truth in advertising through psychology allows us to understand the impact of marketing techniques using psychology on people's perception of truth.

Philosophy's Discourse on Advertising's Truth
Advertising is an innately utilitarian practice, seeking to “satisfy needs and wants through an exchange process”. However, this attempt to satisfy the customer does not necessarily mean that utilitarian advertising is ethical. For example, McDonald’s advertisements hold utilitarian value in that they satisfy the desires of many consumers, but the health implications of regular consumption of such unhealthy foods contradict the suggestion that these advertisements adhere to utilitarianism. In fact, many argue that the negative impacts of such advertisements overshadow the gratification they evoke in those who view them, so much so that the UK government imposed a ban on television junk food advertising before 9pm in an attempt to tackle obesity. However, from a purely utilitarian perspective, there are arguments to be made for both sides; hiding the truth of the repercussions of habitual junk-food consumption causes more widespread satisfaction among consumers who enjoy it, and it could be argued that this should be prioritized over showing the rather more grim truth of the realities of this sort of lifestyle.

Another major philosophical perspective on advertising is the deontological one. Deontology is the study of moral duty along the lines of good and bad. A deontologist would support the restriction of communication that deceives consumers or takes advantage of their psychological traits for the sake of profit. Therefore, from a deontological perspective, the truth is the most important factor in advertising. In 2019, prompted by advertisements for products such as ineffective weight loss drinks, the UK’s advertising regulator told agencies to eliminate stereotypes “likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offense”, supporting the deontological perspective that advertisements should not portray anything untruthful.

Economics' Discourse on Advertising's Truth
Since the beginning of the 21st-century, advertising has become a key business plan for firms and start-ups. Indeed, 80% of Google revenue per year comes from advertisements that they run on their platforms. Social media greatly benefits from this, as US social network ad revenues have nearly doubled from USD$21 billion in 2017 to USD$36 billion in 2019. However, advertising's success as a business plan has created significant monopolies such as GAFA, discouraging new firms from entering the market as they cannot compete against them.

Advertising has benefited from a new economic study called “behavioural economics” which adds "insights from psychology and empirical research on human cognition and emotional biases to economic model”. In the digital era, this means mass collection of user data, subject of the 2018 Facebook trial. The discipline of economics helps perceive 21st century businesses' main motivation: using data to provide more accurate ads, resulting in increased profitability. Therefore, platforms' key interest is the amount of time we spend on their services, resulting in them creating increasingly addictive content.

In terms of data collection, great emphasis has been placed on Artificial Intelligence, as it helps understand users' behaviour by analyzing large amounts of data. The objective of 21st-century businesses that run ads is to make you perceive them not as a tool but a necessity, motivated by the fact that a click on an Instagram ad is worth, on average, USD$1.3 of revenue. Therefore, the study of the economic discipline within the context of ads in modern businesses gives better insight on how regulations on data utilisation allowing a limited amount of data to be stored would prevent centralized economies such as monopolies and psychological addiction to technological services.

Tension and Solution
The prevalence of 21st-century digital targeted advertising brings concepts in behavioural economics, a subdiscipline developed from the foundations of economics and psychology, into practice. This interdisciplinary approach has led to marketing and media communication advancements, but also tension between disciplines and different camps of ethics theories. With the discrepancy between the understanding and theorizing on truth across disciplines explored in this chapter, utilitarian interdisciplinary practice has struck deontological concerns, with its coherence with the truth disputed. Despite the argument from some cognitive psychologists that to separate objective truth from subjective perception is impracticable, there remains a need to address the ethical issues raised amid a global climate of low trust levels.

Given the unreliable nature of consumers' perception, we suggest exploring the often overlooked works of communication ethics scholars for the implementation of Aristotelian actor-centred ethic principles in existing frameworks of advertising-communication advisory codes, which emphasize advertisers' practical ethical awareness instead of universalist ethic values. This should come not just as a legal mechanism but more as self-regulation, in response to frequent violations of articles on 'misleading advertising' and 'honesty' in regulatory codes of ethics. From the perceiving side of the issue, a trend of fact-checking political advertisements by institutions, combining positive evidence and political communication techniques, has become increasingly common. Exploration of the possibility of bringing the practice of truth validation into advertising for consumer products and services might provide interdisciplinary insight to truth-seeking in this issue.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in 21st century advertising

So to summarize we will be writing on the issue in four parts: viewpoints from Economics, Psychology, Philosophy, and the conflict between them (Conclusion), and we'll be doing the research this week :) XxXdiehardbascloverXxX (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Our writings have been settled around "21th century" advertisement as "modern" advertising could be confusing on what it really englobes. Our main scope has been new platforms that run ads as part of their business plan and worldwide known brands. ReasonWithKnowledge

Meeting Summary 20/11/2020
We had quite different thoughts at the beginning. But we were interested in advertisements and how the issue of truth was connected to it. We then think of a recent shift that happened in advertising which is about showing more the reality of things hence more diversity than before. It can and it is surely a change of mentality, where all consumers want to be represented to be able to identify themselves to the product. But above all, it is an opportunity for companies to target more consumers to maximize their profit. Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Summary 27/11/2020
On our zoom call today we reflect on the fact that our wiki chapter title "truth in the diversity of modern advertising" is not enough representing our topic and can be misunderstood. We are reflecting on finding one that will fit better. Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Summary 06/12/2020
1. More focus on whether modern advertising is 'truthful' or not e.g. What is considered the truth? Are corporations/firms becoming more honest or deceitful when advertising their products on new platforms (social media, internet campaigns) with new information (big data, people's internet activity)? 2. Summarize what scholars/academics in these disciplines are saying about modern advertising e.g. What do modern mainstream psychologists/economists/philosophers think about advertising nowadays? What solutions do they suggest to make advertising more truthful, or do they think it's already honest enough?
 * 2.1. We can make use of Google Scholar to find academic journals from the disciplines to see what are the most popular views on advertising from academics in these disciplines

3. After coming up with some neat summaries on different discipline's perspectives, we will discuss our work again on Thursday to bridge them together(introduction and conclusion) and finalize the three sections XxXdiehardbascloverXxX (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy
After doing some research this week, I think that it might be a little hard to use philosophy as one of the disciplines we focus on, because there isn't too much information about it in relation to our case study. It would be good if during today's zoom meeting we could maybe talk about this and think of a solution/something else we could look at instead Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Speedy 0109 (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What I put in the philosophy section are just some notes on the different views of truth in philosophy. I'm going to do some more research on those and then link them to advertising - looking at how advertisements fit the different perspectives of truth, and the ethical repercussions this could have Speedy 0109 (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Psychology
This week, we took time to set up our topic, reflecting on the different aspects of it. In terms of psychology within our topic, I did some research on how I can approach it. I read an interesting article about the psychology of advertising that was comparing advertisements to "the nervous system of the business world". Because as a nervous system is made to bring us every imaginable sensation from things around us, an advertisement must do the same. It is also said that the goal of an advertisement writer to produce certain effects on the minds of possible customers to make them want to buy their product. In this article, they define advertising as the Art of determining the will of potential consumers. Another interesting point is about how different memories are related to advertising. Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I reflect a lot on psychology in Advertising and found that psychology is essential in advertising, as ads aims are to touch the potential consumers in their emotions. Important to remember that beyond the product in itself it is the idea of it that matters, therefore how it is presented is as important as the content of the product. Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I put a part on several psychologists' ideas on advertising. Borabora18 (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Punishment and The Panopticon

Summary of Meeting #6 - 12/12/2020 9:00 am
In attendance: Lamplight360, Hithertoundreamt, 5050clown

Final to do list:

- Lamplight360 continue edits and lowering word count in economics section

- Hithertoundreamt final spelling, capitalization, stylistic edits

- 5050clown and Lamplight360 final referencing edits to maintain Vancouver style

- ALL - final read-through before submission by Sunday evening (13/12/2020)

12. Edits for Word Count - Economics quote
The Chapter is shaping up really well, thank you @5050clown and @Lamplight360 for the edits! @Lamplight360, I think 5050clown has mentioned this in one of the comments he added to the page in bold, I think the Frank H. Knight quote can link well to the discussion of home economicus in the criminology section. The quote itself is unfortunately too long and leads to an imbalance in the discussion of economics as a discipline.

Maybe one way you could consider summarising it is by saying the "absolutes are: that human actors behave rationally and that decisions made lead to (allocative) efficiency," or some variation of this. Given that the quote is talking about the ideas of 'rationality' and 'efficiency', it might be good to synthesise the quote into these two key ideas to make the paragraph more direct (and help cut down our word count of course!) Hope this helps and let me know your thoughts!

PS. I may be wrong about the type of efficiency Knight is talking about in his quote - ie. it may not be allocative efficiency, I may have misread his words! Like I said, feel free to adapt it to whatever variation you think is appropriate. Thanks! -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * This suggestion lines very well with what I mentioned to Lamplight360 in person yesterday. I added the comment today to remind him of my suggestion. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I agree there is much that can be reduced in terms of word count, while still preserving the central thrust of the paragraph. I will continue editing with this in mind and look forward any further suggestions.

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

11. Summary of Meeting #5 - 08/12/2020 5:00pm
In attendance: 5050clown, Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360

Progress
Every group member has made progress on their individual contributions, and expanded on their ideas as per discussions during meetings/outside of meetings. Focus until submission date is now to condense and coalesce Chapter.

Formatting and Subtitles
Rearranged paragraphs to give Chapter and sections more structure and a clear flow. Agreed and changed subtitles to reflect the disciplines each section is discussing (now "Criminology and Critical Philosophy on Punishment" and "Economics versus Postmodern Philosophy on The Panopticon").

Hithertoundreamt removed hyperlinks from the "Criminology and Critical Philosophy on Punishment" section to better fit with overall Chapter and make the publication more self-contained.

Discussed that capitalisation and other grammatical features are somewhat inconsistent throughout Chapter, solutions were agreed upon and these will be rectified before the next meeting.

To do list
1. Editing - Agreed to read through whole Chapter, with a particular focus on our individual contributions, to identify redundancies/extra information. This is the main focus until next meeting. Lamplight360 will be focusing on how to better integrate contributions relating to Economics and condensing these paragraphs.

2. Introduction - Hithertoundreamt wrote a preliminary introduction, 5050clown will be adapting and finalising this until next meeting. Discussed that the key aim of the introduction should be to set out all the disciplines being discussed, and how these relate to our case study (ie. how Philosophy (critical/postmodern) conflict with Criminology and Economics (utilitarian) with regards to punishment).

3.Images/Pictures - These will be added to the Chapter during the next meeting.

4. Referencing - Lamplight360 and 5050clown will work on removing repeat referencing before/during next meeting due to Hithertoundreamt's absence during the week caused by travel disruption. All group members will review these during the subsequent meeting.

5. Next meeting - Decided to have the next and final meetings on Saturday and Sunday (12th and 13th December) to finalise Chapter before submission on the 14th.

-- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

10. Final Edits before Submission
I know we are all working on finalising and coalescing our sections at the moment; I thought it would be useful have a list of action points/things we should think about completing before submission. These can be minor but it would be good to be mindful of these once we've finished writing! -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Hyperlinks

 * 1. Hyperlinks - We should either remove hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages or use these consistently throughout the Chapter. This depends on wheteher we think our Chapter should be a 'closed' and comprehensive piece, or if we'd like to offer linkage to relevant articles/ideas etc.  -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * 1a. I think given the specificity of the topic with which we are dealing, it may be best to remove hyperlinks to preserve a more self-contained publication. I welcome the views of other contributors on this issue, as I feel it's important to address. --Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * 1b. I agree! I'll remove the hyperlinks in my section to be more consistent with the larger Chapter. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

2. Segmentation and Subtitles

 * 2. Segmentation - We need to decide if we want to format our chapter as an essay, or more like a Wiki article. If the latter, a useful finishing touch would be to agree upon the subtitling (therefore the table of contents) of our wikibook.  --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * 2a. That's an excellent point, it's something I noticed as well when going through the Page. Appropriate subtitling would definitely be helpful if we decide to go with the second route. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

3. Sources and Referencing

 * 3. Source repetition - At the end we need to make sure that our sources aren't repeated, that we have one reference no. per source, etc.  --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * 3a. Agreed! (I think I may be the primary culprit here!) With regards to sources, I also wanted to add that we should be consistent with the referncing format for Wikipedia. A few of the quotes/definitions we used have specific page numbers in addition to author-date in-text citations. I think to better fit the Vancouver referencing system and have consistency throughout our Chapter, we should review our in-text citations. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * 3b. Due to our ability to do so, Lamplight360 and I will meet in person and fix references this weekend. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Grammar

 * 4. Grammatical consistency - We need to come to a consensus on if we should capitalise "Panopticon". Additionally, the internationality of our team means we have discrepancies in some spelling conventions. Perhaps we go back and make sure our spelling is consistent?  --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * 4a. I believe the capitalization of Panopticon depends on the context and we can discuss each instance of ambiguity in our more final edits. I certainly agree we need to decide on a spelling format and feel this could also fall under the category of final edits. --Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

9. Source Validity- The Bentham Project
The Panopticon section is shaping up really well! @5050clown I noticed the use of 'The Bentham Project' as a source in your contributions, and I was wondering what you think about how comprehensive this source is in discussing the ideas in the following line:

 * However, this concept, according to Bentham, is not purely architectural, nor confined to prisons. He suggested that an equivalent system of surveillance would have beneficial applications in schools and hospitals.[22]

I think the Webpage offers a good overview of the Panopticon and its basic functions (hence it works for its earlier citation), but is it relevant in terms of a discussion about its wider application? Let me know your thoughts!

-- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I cited two Bentham Project links in separate instances in that paragraph. The leaflet sourced in your quoted section does mention Bentham's opinion on the wider application of his scheme:

 * "the principle could be applied to hospitals and schools, as well as to commercial concerns, and was most famously developed by Bentham as a prison."

 * Do you see this segment as sufficient, or would you prefer I find another source?
 * --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * That's fair, I think it should be fine given you have a clear reference within the article. Discussion of this idea is also not the focus of the first Panopticon paragraph, and there are other valid sources cited later in the text. Thank you for clarifying! -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

8. Summary of Meeting #4 - 01/12/2020 1:40pm
In attendance: 5050clown, Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360

General Assessments
The Wikibook is currently split into thirds:

 * Hithertoundreamt’s Criminology vs Critical Philosophy (Foucault) (500 words)
 * 5050clown’s Panopticon Case Study introduction (500 words)
 * Lamplight360’s assessment of the economic viability of the Panopticon (250 words)

5050clown’s suggestion: The first section is extremely distinct from the last two, so we should coalesce parts 2 and 3 before integrating the first.

Hithertoundreamt’s assessment on 5050clown’s section:

 * Final paragraph could be tweaked so it is more in relation to truth. Discuss truth in the Bloody Code vs in Bentham’s system perhaps.
 * Compare Bentham’s absolutist moral truth vs Foucault’s more relativist look.

Lamplight360 brought up the tone of the chapter. Agreement amongst everyone that we should adopt an impartial tone akin to Wikipedia. Therefore the conclusion should tie the discussion together, not make any final thesis.

Grand Theory of the Wiki Chapter
Put together by the group on a zoom whiteboard slide.

Main topic: Punishment and the Panopticon

Disciplines involved: Economics, Criminology, Postmodern / Critical Philosophy (using Foucault as a through line)

Postmodernism critiques the methods of criminology, creates conflict with criminology as a discipline.

Postmodernism critiques utilitarianism philosophy, especially the Panopticon, creating conflict with economics.

To do list

 * Lamplight360: Finish adding economics section to panopticon case study (250 words)

Team decided to meet in a cafe over the weekend to work together, as it would be far more beneficial. There, we have set the following goals for each other

--5050clown (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 5050clown: modifying final paragraph as per Hithertoundreamt’s critiques listed above.
 * Lamplight360: Conclude section on panoptiocon (250 words)
 * Hithertoundreamt: Coalesce / create through lines between his paragraph and the Panopticon case study.

7. Jeremy Bentham's Conception of Truth
Jeremy Bentham appears to have differing theories of truth depending on what aspect of his work you look at. The most clear cut example I could find was his theory of law, which despite being called legal positivism, feels more like a constructivist approach to lawmaking (opposing natural law which presupposes universal moral laws - i.e created laws correspond to the moral laws of reality). I thought this would be very helpful for me as I could compare this to the mental wellbeing of prisoners in the panopticon in actuality, which comes from a more psychological (scientific) correspondence understanding of truth.

Despite this, I've heard from Lamplight360 that he has found evidence that (at least as far as utilitarian economics is concerned) Bentham is a pragmatist/positivist. I'm struggling to see how these two aspects can coalesce. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * That's an excellent observation, I think our discussion in the last meeting addressed this well and we've reached a satisfying conclusion. -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

6. Criminology/Criminal Justice as a Discipline?
After reading Hithertoundreamt's paragraph, I am left with a of couple questions regarding the group understanding of the disciplines we aim to incorporate. The case for criminology as a discipline seems strong and self-evident. I wonder, however, if Hithertoundreamt could provide some clarification about critical philosophy as a discipline?

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that criminology and criminal justice are both academic disciplines. There are examples of universities offering these topics as distinct courses. Also on a fundamental level they are different areas of research - criminology is more psychological, anthropological and sociological; criminal justice is based in law, public policy etc. I don't think that it's entirely necessary to make this distinction overt in the book - if we give a brief summary of both disciplines that should be sufficient. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Apologies for the belated reply, I think you are absolutely correct to question how Critical Philosophy factors in and whether it can be considered a discipline, thank you for bringing it up. The way I approached this is by looking at what Philosophy is more broadly, in that it is an activity/discipline focused on the right way of thinking about things. It has applications across disciplines, which is why we often see terms like "philosophy of science" or "philosophy of art", and "epistemology" often as separate and distinguishable terms. I felt that using "philosophy" as a critique of criminology would be too expansive, which is why I think it is important to identify a specific aspect or branch/theory/school of thought within Philosophy.

 * I chose 'Critical Philosophy' as the specific focus mostly for two reasons. Firstly it is something Foucault's work has been identified as actively utilising and therefore seems relevant to a discussion about his work (specifically the ideas mentioned in the section). Secondly, Critical Philosophy more broadly was devised by Kant as a view of philosophy that prioritises criticism rather than the justification of knowledge, which means that it seeks to subject all theories to critical review. I think this view is particularly relevant to what we are trying to do in our Wikibook Chapter, as it helps identify conflict between disciplines. I hope this helps explain my reasoning, but please do let me know if you have any thoughts on this! Thank you!

 * -- Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

5. The Panopticon: Possible Case Study?
After reading Hithertoundreamt's initial paragraph, and reading some notes I had (including suggestions from other group members) I felt a possible unifying case study coming to the fore. The mention of Foucault in the paragraph reminded me of what I had read about Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian prison system The Panopticon, and Foucault's critique of it in Discipline and Punish. The Panopticon is a perfect unifying case study in my eyes, as it solves an issue in criminal justice via the use of architecture from the lens of economic utilitarianism (utilitarianism also being a philosophical theory). Opposing the panopticon are postmodern philosophers, and psychologists looking at prisoner wellbeing. It is a highly interdisciplinary issue, and beneficially it is (almost) purely theoretical, so we don't have to worry about conflating a discipline with its practice.

I thought that maybe I could introduce this topic, along with conflicts between these two disciplines. This would create a perfect throughline from Hithertoundreamt's section about criminal justice vs philosophy, and Lamplight360's section on what looks to be economics. Then once we have all of our sections done we can merge them together using the case study as an anchoring point.

Would love to hear what you guys think about this, because this really does feel like a perfect synthesis of all of our section ideas. One thing to mention is that US Law might have to be scrapped, and instead we focus on this as a concept. In my eyes this would be better though as it will avoid moving too strongly towards criminal justice in practice. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree with all of the above and would reiterate 5050clown's point about maintaining the theory rather than practice of law, as this would be a good deterrent against inadvertent conflation of case study with discipline.

 * Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * As we have discussed, I think this is an excellent observation and definitely helps offer a synthesis between each of our interests, within this unit and in general. When researching Foucault's work and his criticism of criminology, I found quite a few references to Bentham and The Panopticon, as Foucault discusses Bentham's views in parts as well as his model of the Panopticon in parts to help build his analysis. Using these themes as our case study will definitely help create a through-line narrative in our Chapter, so I think this will be an excellent direction forward.

 * --Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Capital Punishment and Interdisciplinary Consensus
As I am looking more into capital punishment as a possible research topic, I am struggling to find disciplinary disagreements on this issue, let alone disagreements in relation to truth. I think because the topic is so controversial, all disciplines will have pro- and con- arguments available (i.e. there is no disciplinary consensus).

The main disciplines that look at capital punishment are philosophy and law theory. As philosophy is a discipline centered around formulating opinions, the consensus over the morality of capital punishment does not exist in this discipline. Similarly, in Law theory, philosophical arguments are used to back up opinions over the issue, of which there is no consensus.

As a result of this roadblock, I have spoken with Lamplight360 and we have decided to both focus on rehabilitative vs retributive justice, with myself focusing on opinions from a behavioural science point of view, whilst Lamplight focuses on the issue from an economic lens. --5050clown (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

3. Summary of Meeting #3 - 24/11/2020 5pm
In Attendance: Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360, 5050clown

Possible research avenues
- 4 sources almost all pointing to war on drugs - Disciplines presented in text: theoretical criminology, public policy, anthropology, law, criminal justice - Race, gender perspectives - Rehabilitation vs retribution in US criminal justice system: mental health, behavioral science, philosophy/ethics - Copyright law in the arts - Difference between law in practice and law as a discipline? - Philosophical ethics vs. law - move away from legislation, instead focus on capital punishment - Medical science and use of psychedelics, medical cannabis - Truth vs. Power? - What are we really asking? Power dynamics or differing conceptions of truth
 * Hithertoundreamt research points:
 * Lamplight360 research points:
 * 5050clown research points:
 * Remaining questions:

Methodology for Writing Wiki Chapter
- Hithertoundreamt's Intro - Lamplight360 retribution vs rehabilitation - 5050clown medical science perspective - Sandbox-like entry - Coalesce - Introduce/conclude - Distill/edit
 * Potential 3-part structure:
 * 4-step plan:

Looking Ahead
- Write own wikibook entry (approach as with sandbox) - Use discussion page for questions that arise while writing - Meet again 1/12/2020 @ 10 am
 * For next meeting:

Lamplight360 (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Summary of Meeting #2 - 20/11/2020 1pm
In Attendance: Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360

Topic(s)
Discussed two pathways, either looking at disciplines relating to War on Drugs, or returning to theme of Criminal Justice and look at where interdisciplinary issues occur. Another approach could be to look at specific court cases and see what different disciplinary arguments/disagreements arose.

Agreed that it is important to be mindful we are discussing issues in disciplines as opposed to issues in the real world.

Agreed that we are likely to identify at least three different disciplines (eg. law, economics, philosophy etc.), but should start research by looking for at least two.

Issue Preference- Power vs Truth
We were leaning towards choosing power at the start of the meeting, following discussions in the first meeting. We identified how power dynamics can be found in many forms and at different levels.

Following critical discussion (within Meeting #2 and prior to it in conversation with 5050clown), however, there was recognition that power would be more specific to physical features/structures within and surrounding the discipline (eg. who teaches/studies, how coercion/silences can exist, how much weight is given to different disciplines, etc.). With truth we could research belief systems, where logic comes from in different disciplines, and what they use to justify their theories; which was more in line with what all three group members are interested in.

Structure and Approach
Agreed that each of us would approach it by adding in all our ideas to begin with, and we would edit/whittle down to make a cohesive Wikibook chapter. Editing process would be collaborative and iterative.

We agreed to have self-imposed weekly deadlines to make sure we contribute and make progress regularly. Recognising other deadlines for different group members, we agreed we would finish earlier than specified deadline.

Created Wikibook chapter by the end of the meeting.

Discussion and Discussion Page
Agreed to have regular weekly meetings throughout term to make sure each of is updated and making progress and to discuss any questions/problems that arise during the process.

Agreed that this Discussion page will be formatted in chronological order with the latest discussion topic at the top (first entry will be at the bottom, and every subsequent entry above this in chronological order). This will be interspersed with summaries of meeting minutes, as and when they occur, in chronological order, and that a consistent numbering system will be used to help understand the order of entries. Every new stream of thought will be added as a new discussion topic for clarity (the exception being if a member is responding/re-responding directly to another entry)

--Hithertoundreamt (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Summary of Meeting #1 - 16/11/2020 5pm
In Attendance: Hithertoundreamt, Lamplight360, 5050clown

Meetings
Alternation between writer of meeting summaries.

General Discussion
Clarification of assessment details

Word count: Best practice may be to write down as many ideas as possible, and then whittle it down at the end.

Issue Preferences
No interest in History from any individual.

Evidence and Truth appear to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. There are lots of sources on Evidence, but it may be more difficult to write something meaningful about Evidence as an issue. Truth is the most cerebral issue - despite there being much interesting philosophical theory behind the idea, we found sources on the application of truth harder to come by in the sandbox.

There was an agreement that Power strikes a good middle ground between Evidence and Truth. Power can lend itself to interesting and rewarding writing, and there are many sources to come by in relation to its application. Additionally, Power felt the most “issue-like” out of the four, and so an essay would come more naturally.

Deciding on a topic
We will each have an individual research session on the concepts of power in our areas of special interest.

Hithertoundreamt mentioned criminal justice. There was an agreement that this would be a good starting point for the following reasons: allows specificity through use of case studies; strong interdisciplinary links: politics, economics, IR, science, humanities, arts, philosophy; the issue of power is highly linked to political systems, including the criminal justice system.

We decided to specify our research onto US Criminal Justice due to a wide range of sources and source types.

Possible starting points: War on Drugs, 70s Tobacco Lobbying.

--5050clown (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Mmpeet/sandbox

blahblah

 * LMIs in Systems and Control Theory - A downloadable book on LMIs by Stephen Boyd.

title: User:Mmpeet/sandbox


text:
LMIs in Control/pages/Robust H inf State Feedback Control

Additive uncertainty
Full State Feedback is a control technique which places a given system's closed loop system poles in locations specified by desired performance specifications. One can use $$H_{\infty}$$ methods to turn this into an optimization problem with the goal to minimize the impact of uncertain perturbations in a closed loop system while maintaining system stability. This is done by minimizing the $$ H_{\infty} $$ norm of the uncertain closed loop system, which minimizes the worst case effect of the system disturbance or perturbation. This can be done for single-input single-output (SISO) or multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems. Here we consider the case of a MIMO system with additive uncertainties.

The System
Consider linear system with uncertainty below:
 * $$\begin{bmatrix} \dot{x}\\z \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} (A+{\Delta}A) & (B_{1}+{\Delta}B_{1}) & B_{2}\\ C & D_{1} & D_{2} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x\\u\\w \end{bmatrix}

$$ Where $$x(t)\in \R^n$$ is the state, $$z(t)\in \R^m$$ is the output, $$w(t)\in \R^p$$ is the exogenous input or disturbance vector, and $$u(t)\in \R^r$$ is the actuator input or control vector, at any $$t\in \R$$

$$ {\Delta}A $$ and $$ {\Delta}B_{1} $$ are real-valued matrices which represent the time-varying parameter uncertainties in the form:

$$ \begin{bmatrix} {\Delta}A & {\Delta}B_{1} \end{bmatrix} = H F \begin{bmatrix} E_{1} & E_{2} \end{bmatrix} $$

Where

$$ H, E_{1}, E_{2} $$ are known matrices with appropriate dimensions and $$ F $$ is the uncertain parameter matrix which satisfies: $$ F^TF \le I $$

For additive perturbations: $$ {\Delta}A = {\delta}_{1}A_{1}+{\delta}_{2}A_{2}+...+{\delta}_{k}A_{k} $$

Where

$$ A_{i}, i = 1, 2, ... k $$ are the known system matrices and

$$ {\delta}_{i}, i = 1, 2, ... k $$ are the perturbation parameters which satisfy $$ \vert {\delta}_{i} \vert < r_{i}, i = 1, 2, ..., k $$

Thus, $$ {\Delta}A = HFE $$ with

$$ H = \begin{bmatrix} A_{1} & A_{2} & ... & A_{k} \end{bmatrix} $$

$$ E = (\sum_{i=1}^k r_{i}^2)^{1/2} $$

$$ F = (\sum_{i=1}^k r_{i}^2)^{-1/2} \begin{bmatrix} {\delta}_{1}I \\ {\delta}_{2}I \\ \vdots \\ {\delta}_{k}I \end{bmatrix} $$

The Data
$$A$$, $$B_{1}$$, $$B_{2}$$, $$C$$, $$D_{1}$$, $$D_{2}$$, $$E_{1}$$, $$E_{2}$$, $$ {\gamma} $$ are known.

The LMI:Full State Feedback Optimal $$H_{\infty}$$ Control LMI
There exists $$X>0$$ and $$W$$ and scalar $$ {\alpha} $$ such that

 * $$\begin{bmatrix} {\Psi}(X,W) & B_{2} & (CX+D_{1}W)^{T} & (E_{1}X+E_{2}W)^{T} \\ B_{2}^{T} & -{\gamma}I & D_{2}^{T} & 0\\ CX+D_{1}W & D_{2} & -{\gamma}I & 0 \\ E_{1}X+E_{2}W & 0 & 0 & -{\alpha}I \end{bmatrix}<0

$$.

Where $$ {\Psi}(X,W) = (AX+B_{1}W)_{s} + {\alpha}HH^{T} $$

And $$K=WX^{-1}$$.

Conclusion:
Once K is found from the optimization LMI above, it can be substituted into the state feedback control law $$ u(t) = Kx(t) $$ to find the robustly stabilized closed loop system as shown below:

 * $$\begin{bmatrix} \dot{x}\\z \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} (A+{\Delta}A)+(B_{1}+{\Delta}B_{1})K & B_{2}\\ (C + D_{1})K & D_{2} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x\\w \end{bmatrix}

$$

where $$x(t)\in \R^n$$ is the state, $$z(t)\in \R^m$$ is the output, $$w(t)\in \R^p$$ is the exogenous input or disturbance vector, and $$u(t)\in \R^r$$ is the actuator input or control vector, at any $$t\in \R$$

Finally, the transfer function of the system is denoted as follows:

$$ G_{zw}(s) = (C+D_{1}K)(sI-[(A+{\Delta}A)+(B_{1}+{\Delta}B_{1})K])^{-1}B_{2}+D_{2} $$

Implementation
This implementation requires Yalmip and Sedumi. https://github.com/rubindan/LMIcontrol/blob/master/HinfFilter.m

Related LMIs
Full State Feedback Optimal H_inf LMI

Return to Main Page:
LMIs in Control: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LMIs_in_Control


text: User:Nnbeauli

title: User:Nnbeauli


text:
User talk:124.109.59.37

ok

title: User talk:124.109.59.37


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Is Modest Clothing Constrained by Social Norms or the Manifestation of Individual Freedom?

Meeting Notes from 20/11/2020 - Initial Ideas
Attendees: Lucky Lilac Lion, WoodzyMoodzy, Djungelskog1, Mathildem16

Disciplines:

Dystopian Literature

 * Trope: dystopias control how people have to dress

 * being oppressed, forced to conform to status quo, lose individuality

 * e.g. The Handmaid’s Tale – costumes are modest, covering their head and bodies from neck to ankles

Feminist Social Anthropology

 * not oppressed/ forced to dress a certain way but expressing their own culture, identity

 * Eurocentric/ ethnocentric to say they are being oppressed with clothing, which makes them lose their identity/ individuality

 * e.g. Middle Eastern countries – women are expected to wear modest clothing

Research Question Ideas

 * When is fashion considered restrictive?

 * Is modesty in fashion restrictive/ restricting individuality? (specifically, women’s fashion)

 * How does the perception/ expectation of truth in fashion differ in fictional and real-world societies?

 * Truth in dress codes: imposed or free will?

Why choosing these disciplines to answer the research question?

 * Dystopian literature has a common trope which illustrates how people can be oppressed through clothing

 * Feminist Social Anthropology gives a perspective to the question from other cultures

To do:

 * Justify them as disciplines - find discipline markers

 * Choose a research question - fix the wording of it

 * Do more research into fashion in Dystopian Literature and fashion as seen in Feminist Social Anthropology

--Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Notes from 27/11/2020 - Plan
Attendees: Lucky Lilac Lion, WoodzyMoodzy, Mathildem16, Djungelskog1

Introduction (200 words)

Why we've decided to focus on women (WoodzyMoodzy)

Why we've chosen these disciplines to answer the question (Mathilde.16,WoodzyMoodzy)

Responses/ Disciplines (400 words per discipline)

History/Emergence of Dystopian Literature as a sub-discipline of English Literature (Djungelskog1, Mathilde.16)

History/Emergence of Feminist Anthropology (Lucky Lilac Lion)

Conclusion

Discussing the tension between the disciplines (200 words)

Referencing (Djungelskog1,Mathildem16,WoodzyMoodzy)

Adding wikilinks, illustrations (Lucky Lilac Lion, Mathildem16)

--WoodzyMoodzy (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I've added the headings to the sandbox page so when we add our sections we can just click the edit button on each section instead of having to edit the entire thing all at once. Djungelskog1 (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Notes from 04/12/2020 - To Do
Attendees: Lucky Lilac Lion, WoodzyMoodzy, Djungelskog1, Mathildem16

To Do:

-       Are we going to include wikilinks to Wikipedia articles? Yes (Lucky Lilac Lion) -       Shorten overall text (Lucky Lilac Lion, Mathildem16) -       Add references to introduction (WoodzyMoodzy, Mathildem16) -       Add references to English literature (Djungelskog1, Mathildem16)

-       English – needs more exploration of clothing specifically (e.g. through an example or two) (Djungelskog1, Mathildem16)

Djungelskog1 (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Notes from 09/12/2020 - Reducing text length
Attendees: Lucky Lilac Lion, WoodzyMoodzy, Djungelskog1, Mathildem16

We spent 2 hours over the phone, going through each sentences to see how we could make our contribution fit into the 1200 word restriction. Section by section, we each read on our side the text and highlighted what we thought we could delete, before going through it afterwards altogether and seeing how the text would finally look.

To do: -add a 100 word paragraph on The Handmaid's Tale (literary studies response)

-adapt the introduction 1st paragraph

-adapt the social anthropology 2nd paragraph

-check references

-proof read

-check work length (word count)

Next meeting is scheduled for Friday lunchtime.

Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

An important thing to remember also (that we pointed it out in our meeting) was to submit our work early enough and check the plagiarism percentage with turnitin. --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Notes from 11/12/2020 - Final meeting and live submission with every attendees
Attendees: Lucky Lilac Lion, WoodzyMoodzy, Djungelskog1, Mathildem16

-We went through the chapter one last time and checked the referencing.

-Live submission on Moodle of our chapter.

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Guidance for assessment
We talked about it during our last meeting, so I decided to summarise the main assessment criteria here. I hope this will help!

1.	Identify a problem/question which could be examined from an interdisciplinary point of view

2.	Identify a tension between the 2 disciplines=identify where people having a one-sided disciplinary perspective fail to agree with other people working in a different field (this may be because of a disagreement or a simple unawareness of each-others’ works)

3.	Attribute this tension to one of the issues studied in this module (there is no need to provide an answer to the tension, but attempts at solving it are welcomed)

4.	Marks:

-Content: 50% “Regular, thoughtful, precise and relevant contributions, which play an important role in the development of the project. A courteous and professional tone throughout.” -Contribution: 30% “An excellent discussion of an issue in an example of interdisciplinary work. Of clear interest for stakeholders or students thinking of entering” -Writing: 10% “Excellent writing, with few to no grammatical errors or moments of awkward phrasing” -Research and Referencing 10% “Flawless or nearly flawless referencing, with an appropriate range, number and quality of works cited”

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, thank you for this. It's very useful to have the criteria easily accessible here. Also we must not forget that the strict word limit is 1200 words. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Idea for Outlining the History of the Disciplines
Hey, I came up with a general plan that we could follow when writing about how each discipline's history evolved and developed their understanding of fashion/ self expression.

English Literature:
 * history of how English literature/ literary studies became a discipline
 * literary studies is a subdiscipline and includes studying dystopian fiction
 * dystopias have common trope of restricting individuality (e.g. through clothing choice)
 * give examples of books and some feminist critiques which mention how clothing is a mode of restricting individual freedom

Social Anthropology:
 * history of how the discipline of social anthropology was initially male-dominated
 * in the 20th century with the rise of feminism, it started focusing more on gender
 * anthropologist now argue that not every culture experiences gender/ oppression in the same way (e.g. different views about self-expression through clothing)
 * give examples of feminist social anthropologists who mention this idea

--Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the work so far: topo
Here are a few point I wanted to make after working on the chapter this afternoon and as a follow-up of our meeting a few hours ago:

-I took the liberty to add a word in the introduction "Dystopian English Literature". This is to be consistent throughout our chapter and consistently refer to the same sub-discipline. I also need to verify with #WoodzyMoodzy but our response for Dystopian Literature is based on two works which may not be specifically English Dystopian Literature (but international/foreign). In that case, we would need to remove the "English" everywhere from our chapter to be logical.

-Speaking of consistency, I saw that in the introduction and the response for Social Anthropology, the approach is focused on women and especially on feminist clothing, which is not the case for the Dystopian Literature response. Is that an issue?

-Also, in the introduction for the Dystopian Literature, I mentioned The Handmaid's Tale as an example of clothing oppression in Dystopian Literature but don't further develop this example in my response. Do you feel I should delete it, so I stay consistent and not head into multiple directions, quoting or mentioning 5 different examples (even if they support our point)?

-I was thinking that maybe we could think of "funnier titles" than just "introduction" or "responses". Of course, this is an academic work and the aim is not to be comic or anything, but I was thinking that maybe something out of the ordinary or a bit atypical, intriguing, could be interesting, to catch the reader's attention. I would be more than happy to work on these as I really like doing that, but most importantly I would like to know how you feel about that (we will not do it obviously if I am the only keen person on this :) )

-Wiki-links have already been mentioned, and #Lucky Lilac Lion is taking care of these, but just thought I'd add this here.

-I will also work on finding illustrations this weekend. Maybe 2 or 3 would work. Let me know how you feel about this please.

-I have proof read your response #Lucky Lilac Lion and here is what I did. Don't feel at all pressured or forced to take into consideration everything that I said. It is obviously only advice and I wanted to first highlight again the amazing work you did and thank you.

Line 1: which has a department (I feel that either you say something or you don’t but not parenthesizing)

Line 3: a dominant approach in today’s socio-cultural anthropology

Line 11: same here, I would just put “Saba Mahmood, a professor of anthropology” and take the parentheses away

Line 14: like modesty (I don’t know if parentheses count as words, but if so you could save 2 words)

Line 15: change maybe “perspective” with “point of view” because it goes “perspective” and then “perceived” which seem kind of repetitive, although it adds 2 more words…

Line 17: same for the parentheses, maybe replace them with “-“

Line 19: same for the parentheses

Line 20: I don’t know at all, but I was wondering if the verb tense was not maybe “wore”. I know that you want to say that they still wear these today but I am wondering if there isn’t a problem in the sentence with all the different verb tenses

Line 20: same for the parentheses=replace maybe by “which is an important virtue of Islam”

Line 21: I believe that it should be a full stop at the end of the sentence and not a semi-column (probably a typo mistake)

Also, I don't mean this all at pejoratively but while reading your response, I got a bit overwhelmed with all the names you quoted (anthropologist Franz Boas, Chandra Mohanty, Saba Mahmood, anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod, Hanna Papanek). The point of this exercise is to use high-quality and diverse sources to back up our points, but at some points I got the sense of being a bit lost with all these names. Could someone else please tell me if that was also the case or not? I may be that we are Friday evening, and that I just need to clear my head-in that case everything is perfect and you should definitely disregard this comment.

-For the Dystopian Literature response, we are finalising it with #WoodzyMoodzy, so it would be ready by the end of this week-end. I hope you will like it and find it insightful

-We still have the opening at the end of the conclusion which needs to be filled. If anyone feels inspired, please feel free to write something :)

I am truly so sorry to bother you with this never-ending contribution. On this note, I wish you a happy and nice week-end :)))

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for the suggestions for social anthropology! I used some of them to reduce the words in the text.

 * Line 1: Done (I removed 'department' to reduce words)

 * Line 3: Done (I removed 'today' to reduce words)

 * Line 11, 14, 17, 19, 20: In these I used parentheses as a way of reducing the word count since they do not count as words, however sometimes (like in Microsoft Word), signs such as "-" would be counted as a word if they are surrounded by space (e.g. "socio-cultural" would count as 1 word whereas "anthropology - cultural relativism" would count as 4 words)

 * Line 15: Done (changed it to "from a liberal feminist perspective, these women would be viewed as"

 * Line 20: Done (I replaced "was freed" in the sentence, to make "even after the liberation of the country, women still wear burqas", which I think sounds better)

 * Line 21: I used a semicolon here to save words on using conjunctions such as 'and', because semicolons join independent clauses without using a conjunction.

 * Names: I understand that the names could get a little overwhelming. I used them to show a progression of views throughout the history of the discipline: Franz Boas proposes cultural relativism -> the rise of feminism impacts anthropology -> Chandra Mohanty uses the cultural relativism to critique feminist ideas -> Saba Mahmood further critiques feminist ideas through the lens of cultural relativism in anthropology and gives an example -> Abu-Lughod also argues in terms of cultural relativism that Muslim clothing should not be judged by Western feminist views -> therefore, as a result of this historical evolution of the discipline, anthropologists may argue that what (from a wester viewpoint) looks like constraining modest clothing, it actually still allows people to express their individual freedom

 * I will try to further shorten the text, while keeping in mind what you said about the many names used. We also need to try shorten all the other sections - Introduction, Literary studies, Conclusion.

 * --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * For the literary studies text, I understand it can be a little confusing with what exactly is the discipline. This is how I see it and I think this could make it clear for everyone: English literature is the discipline, literary studies is its subdiscipline which studies the genre of dystopia. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Personally, I think we should keep the example of The Handmaid's Tale, because it is a very studied dystopian text (in universities and schools). We can either keep it in the introduction or the literary studies responses part. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * More intriguing subtitles could be interesting to see. If you come up with some ideas, try them and we can tell you if we like them. Also, illustrations will be a good idea too and luckily their captions won't count in the word limit. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for going through my responses. Your paragraphs look amazing and don't worry for the names. I was probably not into the subject and reading as much as I should've have which may explain my certain confusion.

 * Anyways, I have reviewed the whole text and we currently have 972 words (without counting the Literary studies's response). The impression I get when looking at our work is that the introduction and the conclusion may be a bit too long (and would therefore need shortening up). But we can still sort that out!!

 * The literary studies is very good!! Just changed it in the response and introduction, se we are coherent!! Thank you so much though for thinking of it

 * To be honest, the more I look at the Literary Studies's response, the more I think we should focus our case study on The Handmaid's Tale. Let me know your feelings after reading it, but I might go over it tomorrow or at the beginning of next week.

 * --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Text length
Generally, modest clothing refers to a style of loose-fitting dressing that aims to avoid attracting attention by covering parts of the body such as the head, shoulders, arms and legs. This style is most commonly adopted by women of the Islamic, Judaic and Christian faiths. Although no religion or culture have the same interpretation, modest clothing is considered as a traditional representation of the antiquated patriarchal view that men hold the right to “appropriately” limit women’s behaviour, and by extension, limit what they wear. This investigation will thus solely focus on modest clothing for women and how it is perceived in the disciplines of English Literature and Social Anthropology. Totalitarian regimes are a major trope in dystopian literature, in which universal dress-codes are imposed to eventually forge a loss of individuality and identity. In such a society, individuals are oppressed and forced to conform to the status quo dressing regulations because of government control. The Handmaid’s Tale is a compelling example in which costumes are modest, covering women’s heads and bodies from neck to ankles. Hence, examining dress from a dystopian literary perspective allows us to see how the governing body in this genre constrains individuality by eliminating the freedom of choosing one’s own clothing. Meanwhile, the customary association of patriarchy with modest clothing distinctly comes at odds with the core of feminist ideologies- the advocacy of equality of the sexes. When considering feminism through the lens of anthropology, one studies the values and customs of different cultures to determine their respective constitutions of gender. Consequently, the work of feminist anthropologists diverges from other extensions of feminist theory by dismissing the prevalent view that all women are oppressed, partly through "imposed" modest womenswear. 283

A subdiscipline of English literature is literary studies, which involves the study of written work including narrative fiction, and thus genres such as dystopia, studied in modules at different universities. Being the dus-topos (δυσ-τόπος), etymologically meaning the bad place in Ancient Greek, dystopia is mainly concerned with the portrayal of imaginary suffering societies as a means to criticise the dangers of a censored and controlled society. This genre emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century, a period marked by socio-political instability, totalitarian regimes and two world wars. It is interesting to note that dystopian works are more likely to be written during times of hegemony, than in chaotic ones. As the “Roman provincialism” behaviour and stability dominate, it seems like there is no need to consider any political alternative, leaving space for the emergence of totalitarian regimes. Dystopian authors hence write their novels in order to warn us about the danger of this passive attitude of giving a governing body too much unilateral power. Totalitarian control in dystopian novels may be depicted in various ways, including censorship or the suppression of liberties-an extremely compelling way being fashion. In reference to the dystopian novels Queen Krinaleen by J.L. Collins, the English Literature professor J. Galant states that "the dominance of fashion leads to a semiotization of people and a reduction of their status to that of signs." In Queen Krinaleen, fashion is used as a weapon by the queen of the Mezzes to ‘infect’ the fashion-obsessed tourists, specifically female tourists, who have come to her country to join the upper echelon of society. She gives them dresses which are seen as the new standard of fashion but, unbeknownst to them, permanently disfigures the wearer. Although it’s a generally unique case in dystopian fiction where the ‘fashion-obsessed’ people wanted to wear these clothes, it’s undeniable that this particular style of clothing was imposed onto them, due to the 'shiploads' of clothes continuously sent to the Amrikite women by the queen. Through this, author J.L. Collins illustrates the detrimental impact fashion can have on people when everyone is wearing the same clothes or when they share beliefs that lead them to have a uniform fashion. This demonstrates how, through dystopian literature, literary studies believe any implementation of uniform clothing to be harmful to societies whether the people in those societies want to wear those clothes or not. 395

Nowadays, anthropology is studied as a discipline in academic establishments, including UCL, LSE, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. At the beginning of the 20th century, the anthropologist Franz Boas proposed a dominant approach in socio-cultural anthropology - cultural relativism, suggesting that each culture should be treated equally. This was a critique of the previously ethnocentric evolutionist anthropology, which ranked the development of cultures in accordance with Western ideas. Furthermore, the rise of second-wave feminism led to the emergence of 1970s feminist anthropology, which sought to encourage the study of gender as an important area of scholarly inquiry, through strengthening women's position in the discipline, both as subjects of research and as the academics, in order to understand the different male and female world-views. However, with the idea of cultural relativism, Chandra Mohanty raised the point that Western feminism tended to portray non-Western women as universally oppressed objects of analysis, constrained by tradition (e.g. through imposed clothing) and perceived as passive victims. Similarly, Saba Mahmood (professor of anthropology) analysed women’s ethnographic realities in Cairo, Egypt, where women actively seek to cultivate traditional virtues that are associated with feminine passivity and submissiveness (e.g. modesty), even though they have historically given women a more subordinate status. She expresses that from a liberal feminist perspective, these women would be viewed as reproducing their own domination and oppression, because the subject of feminist theory is always underpinned by a goal of liberation whereby autonomy is largely understood in terms of being able to resist or subvert oppressive social norms. However, in reality they are operating with a different notion of autonomy altogether: rather than subverting the norms constraining them in search of emancipation (such as in the West, where self-expression is commonly enacted though clothing), women actively try to embody the very norms that constrain them as a mode of seeking emancipation, in the form of religious freedom. Although the burqa has often been seen as a sign of oppression of Muslim women (e.g. in Afghanistan, they were forced to wear it by the Taliban), anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod explains that even after the liberation of the country, women still wear burqas, as it not only symbolises their modesty (important virtue of Islam), it also liberates them by enabling women to move within the public sphere whilst complying with the morally required segregation between men and women; she quotes Hanna Papanek describing the burqa as "portable seclusion.” Abu-Lughod, as with other feminist anthropologists, argues in agreement with cultural relativism – that women, and by extension the clothing they wear, should not be judged by Western standards, instead it should be examined through a culturally specific lens which sees women as “products of different histories, expressions of different circumstances, and manifestations of differently structured desires.” 458

Having two distinct backgrounds, dystopian writers and anthropologists perceive modest clothing differently, one as a way to assert power, while for the other it serves for the expression of identity. On one hand, dystopian literature has built its plot around submissive societies in which totalitarian regimes impose unilateral clothing rules. The reason for this lies in the discipline's history, which emerged as a way to highlight the dangers of dictatorial governing bodies, leading it to focus on such dark tropes. Hence, imposed modest clothing is simply perceived as a means of control over individuals, leaving no space for individuality. Whereas on the other hand, current feminist anthropology argues against the assumption that "imposed" veils on Muslim women make them oppressed by the segregated social norms, as this contrasts the idea of cultural relativism; it is their cultural choice to wear them. It is ethnocentric to state that Western feminist ideas of oppression are universal across all cultures and to ignore the fact that women have different desires structured by their own social, cultural, and historical context, therefore their experiences of oppression and social norms are also different. The historical and cultural specificity of individual freedom therefore (according to anthropology) means that generalisations about women’s constraints, with regards to modest clothing, cannot be made. A possible consideration to reconcile these two opposed stances would be to separate the clothing-a piece of material, from the idea of it being a political instrument. As Gianni Versace asserted, “Don’t make fashion own you, but you decide what you are, what you want to express by the way you dress”. 265

1401=total word count (without the titles)

I feel like we need to:

-shorten the introduction by 90 words at least

-shorten the social anthropology response by 60 words at least

-shorten the conclusion by 70 words at least

I have also added a sentence to the conclusion and added an illustration.

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * After our meeting yesterday (when we shortened the word count), I went through the chapter again and further shortened what I though was a good idea. Just now, I also shortened the added text about 'The Handmaid's Tale'. Our chapter is at 1215 words! It just needs a bit more shortening during our next meeting. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I have reviewed the chapter and we have 1182 characters which is amazing!!! The conclusion and introduction are exactly the same length (228 words). The only thing that is slightly troubling me is that the literary studies' response is 336 words, while the social anthropology one is 385 words long. I was thinking that maybe we could delete the quote of the conclusion and add a sentence in the literary studies response then. Is anyone also keen on doing so?
 * --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a good idea --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Research done for the introduction and the body paragraph "Fashion in Dystopian Literature"
'''Work done for Introduction and History of Dystopian Literature: Here is my research so far. I just need to differentiate clearly what will go in the introduction and the body paragraphs.'''

The establishment of the UCL Department of English Language and Literature, the first in England, by Thomas Dale in 1828 marked the beginning of English Literature as a discipline. This academic field later engendered other sub-disciplines, one of which is dystopia. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/english/department/history-of-the-english-department Being the dus-topos (δυσ-τόπος), etymologically meaning the bad place in Ancient Greek, dystopia is a literary genre, mainly concerned with the portrayal of imaginary suffering societies. https://www.etymonline.com/word/dystopia The origins of this word go back to a speech given by John Stuart Mill in 1868 to the House of Commons in which he asserted that the Utopians “ought rather to be called dys-topians, or caco-topians”. The expression was however only used fifty years later by authors, marking the beginning of dystopian literature as an “official” discipline towards the beginning of the twentieth century. A reason for this temporal emergence was the chaotic and unstable times, marked by totalitarian regimes and Two World wars. The first major dystopian work published was by Yevgeny Zamyatin in 1921 with his novel We. In it, he outlined many of today’s most famous dystopian tropes, including “troubled endings” or totalitarian regimes. Wars fueled dystopian themes, like apocalyptic settings, other wars, science and technology, but mostly totalitarian regimes and censorship, which may be depicted in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. It is not before the 1970’s that dystopian tropes were enlarged, marking an engagement with broader topics, like environmental issues, the rise of advertising or the ongoing economic recessions. A major trope of dystopian literature being totalitarian regimes, in which universal dress-codes are imposed, forges a loss of individuality, of identity. In this society, individuals are oppressed and forced to conform to the status quo dressing regulations because of government control. Hence, examining and approaching clothing from a dystopian perspective allows us to see how the governing body in this literary genre constrains one’s clothing choice, and thus individuality. A compelling example is in The Handmaid’s Tale in which costumes are modest, covering only the people’s heads and bodies from neck to ankles. https://electricliterature.com/the-rise-of-dystopian-fiction-from-soviet-dissidents-to-70s-paranoia-to-murakami/ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/news-and-features/articles/brief-history-dystopian-novel/

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think the last few sentences, from "A major trope of dystopian literature being totalitarian regimes..." until the end would fit well into the introduction as a means of justifying why we are focusing on dystopian literature. I'll add it in as soon as I have finished writing the rest of it :) WoodzyMoodzy (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, I completely agree with you. I did more of a brainstorming, but obviously not all this paragraph will be included in our final chapter. Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Social Anthropology
I added a few paragraphs under the sub-heading 'Social Anthropology'.

 * 1) Djungelskog1, could you please fix the referencing in accordance with the requirements, as discussed in our previous meeting?
 * 2) I wrote just over 460 words in this section. This is a little over the suggested limit we decided on during the meeting (400 words per discipline). If other sections also go beyond the word limit, we may need to try to reduce the words in this section.
 * 3) If anyone has any suggestions to improve this, please let me know.

--Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey, I have just read your contribution. I find it really good and we can still work through it (to reduce it or rearrange the ideas), but I feel that we definitely have a strong base here, so an immense thank you to you.
 * Without wanting to intrude on # Djungelskog1, I don't mind fixing the referencing later on today, if that is fine with everyone.

 * Also, I'll add a media file this week to illustrate your work, if that is ok with you. I don't know about you but I feel it is important to illustrate our work. :)

 * --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, if you can fix the referencing that would be good. Also adding images is a great idea! I hope there are some good ones on the Wikimedia Commons, if not we may have to search for ones with the correct copyright status. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
I wrote a few sentences for our conclusion (focusing on anthropology). It is just an initial idea for now and we can improve it and add to it when the other sections of the Wikibook chapter are completed. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Your conclusion is really good. I completely agree with you...we should keep it open for now and see if it needs to evolve later on depending on our body paragraph's content. I also added the conclusion for the dystopian literature part-it helps me to start with the conclusion to have an idea of where I must go. I have also started a sentence to possibly try to solve the tension we found or at least think about an opening at the end-feel free to add anything.
 * --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I really like your contribution to the conclusion too! We will think about a concluding sentence to suggest a solution as you said. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dystopian Literature
I have pasted my work onto the wiki book chapter. It obviously needs shortening and rearranging but it was just to visualise what it looks like next to the other paragraphs. Also, based on #WoodzyMoodzy research, I put it together in sentences and tried to do a transition between the dystopian literature response and the anthropology response, for the work to run smoothly. Don't hesitate to modify it or change the ideas if you want.

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * @Mathildem16 This is a introduction for dystopian literature! I'll make sure to add more information and link it closer to dystopian literature's relation to fashion Djungelskog1 (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
@Mathildem16 I hope you don't mind, but I re-included the sentence you previously had that gave The Handmaid's Tale as an example as I think it would help maintain focus on women's clothing rather than keeping it too general.

Besides that (anyone) please let me know if you think what I wrote doesn't correlate/flow smoothly into the main body paragraphs! :)

WoodzyMoodzy (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Don't worry it's fine!! Don't apologise for that. I have just raised a few "concerns" (if I can call these so) in my post below about the consistency and usefulness of using this example.

 * Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Illustration
I have just added 3 illustrations for the social anthropology response. Let me know which one you prefer please, so I can delete the others. Also, I am struggling to find a relevant copyright-free illustration for the literary studies's response. If anyone does, please let me know or upload it!! :))

I have also reviewed my literary studies's response. I am not entirely satisfied with it to be honest (I feel there is kind of a discrepancy between what we say in the body paragraphs and the conclusion. Perhaps, the chosen study cases aren't exactly 100% relevant to our study question and answer to it. It would be nice to have your feedbacks on this please.

--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think for the beginning of the literary studies response, we could explain what dystopian literature is and focus more on how it uses different methods for totalitarian control. Then we could lead it onto how one method of control is through fashion and then that would flow better into the case studies. I think the Queen Krinaleen story has a better link to our topic than Walter Besant's story. We could keep the Queen Krinaleen story and take away Besant's story or, alternatively, scrap both of them and talk about The Handmaid's Tale? Or change Besant's story to a study into The Handmaid's Tale so that we have more than one example of our study question. Djungelskog1 (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 * It seems as though 2 illustrations are missing. It is absolutely not an issue, but I was wondering if anyone had removed them on purpose or accidentally (or if it is just a glitch of wikipedia).
 * --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Problem sorted out...ignore my last comment and I apologise for bothering you :)))
 * --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I have just changed the place of The Handmaid's Tale illustration from the introduction to the Literary studies response (where the example on this work will be shortly added). It visually appears next to the social anthropology response but does indeed belong to the literary studies response. --Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The Handmaid's Tale
I saw that @Djungelskog1 had added some important text about 'The Handmaid's Tale' and comparing it to 'Queen Krinaleen'. To keep within the word limit, I edited it a bit to shorten the word count and be more precise with expressing our ideas. --Lucky Lilac Lion (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much. I also clarified the piece on the "Roman provincialism" attitude. I hope this is clearer otherwise please let me know.--Mathildem16 (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Lights will Guide You Home: The Psychology of Safety versus The Environmental Impact of Light in Cities

FOR INCREASED STREET LIGHTING:

Street lights are a tangible method of restoring a sense of psychological safety for the public in a city. Only a quarter of car travel is taken between the the hours of 19.00 and 08.00 however, over 40% of accidents resulting in severe injury or death occur within this timeframe. A high quantity of these casualties are over the age of 60 and young men. Therefore, lighting in cities could be deemed to improve the driver's view of their environment and help them focus more. In one study, reassurance was the person's perceived safety and fear of crime. Reassurance decreases at night as the decrease of light induces a sense of isolation, ease for the offender to hide and a lacking vision of escape routes. According to Matsui, over 85% of women 'always' fear being a victim of street crime. Men are proportionally less likely to report their concerns surrounding street crime than women, thus, perhaps this silence should encourage cities to put more lighting in places with high levels of street crime. Providing more lighting encourages reassurance of safety for both pedestrians and drivers as they perceive it will cause a decrease in crime consequently making them feel safer.

AGAINST INCREASED STREET LIGHTING:

In a study of 65 people, 15 people have said they have tripped on the streets of London at night. However, only three could remember the exact location and only one person noted the poor lighting of the street as a cause or exacerbation of her imbalance. Therefore, we must question the necessity of lighting public spaces as if it is not adequately improving street crime levels and safety; why should money be spent on the upkeep of the lighting, the building of them and generally wasting resources, energy and causing excessive light pollution?


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Lights will Guide You Home: The Psychology of Safety versus The Environmental Impact of Light in Cities

Morning, I have added a few resources and statements I have extracted from them to the wikichapter page. I hope that's alright, obviously it can be completely changed with and deleted! Just think it is good to get something down. I found a really great page for searching for articles and research papers actually from UCL so the link is here: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/. I found some great writing on lighting and the perceived safety of pedestrians. Have you found any really interesting articles or papers? oh and the title is a work in progress!!purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/October 19

Today in 1969 the charge-coupled device was invented.


text:
User:Talitsky/sandbox

Reachable sets with unit-energy inputs; Diagonal Norm-bound uncertainty
A Reachable set is a set of system States reached under the condition $$u = Kx$$. On this page we will look at the problem of finding an controller $$K$$, that  $$E \supseteq RS$$ - reachable set.

The System

\begin{align} \dot{x} &=A x + B_w w + B_u u +B_q p \\ q &= C_q x + D_{qw} w + D_{qu} u + D_{qp} p\\ u &= Kx \end{align} $$

Where:

\begin{align} x & \in R^{n} \\ w & \in R^{m} \\ u & \in R^{k} \\ \end{align} $$ In case of Diagonal Norm-bound uncertainty, we have:

\begin{align} p_i & = \delta_i(t) q_i \\ & |\delta_i(t)| \leq 1;\;\;\;\; \text{for } i = 1, ... , N_q \end{align} $$

The Data
$$N_p = N_q$$

The matrices $$ A \in R^{n\times n};\; B_{w} \in R^{n\times m} ;\; B_{u} \in R^{n\times k}; B_{p} \in R^{n\times N_p}; K \in R^{k\times n}  $$.

$$ C_q \in R^{N_q\times n};\; D_{qu} \in R^{N_q\times k} D_{qw} \in R^{N_q\times m} D_{qp} \in R^{N_q\times N_p} $$.

Reachable set
The reachable set can be defined:

\begin{align} RS &= \{x(T) | u = Kx; \;\; x(0) = 0; \;\; T \geq 0 ;\;\; \int_{0}^T w^T w dt <1 \} \\ \end{align} $$

The elipsoid $$ E = \{ \varepsilon\in R^n | \varepsilon^T Q \varepsilon\leq 1\} \supseteq  RS $$

The Optimization Problem
The following optimization problem should be solved:

\begin{align} \text{Find} \; &M >0: Y\\ & \begin{bmatrix} QA^T + A Q + B_{u }Y + Y^TB^T_{u} + B_{w}B^T_{w}+  B_p M B_p^T & (C_q Q + D_{qu}Y)^T \\ C_q Q + D_{qu}Y & -M I\end{bmatrix}< 0 \\ & K = Y Q^{-1} \end{align} $$

Conclusion:
This LMI allows us to investigate stability for the robust control problem in the case of polytopic uncertainty and gives on the controller for this case

Implementation:

 * - Matlab implementation using the YALMIP framework and Mosek solver

Related LMIs:

 * - Discrete Time Stabilizability
 * Polytopic stability for continuous time case
 * Quadratic polytopic stabilization
 * Discrete Time Lyapunov Stability

Return to Main Page:

 * Main Page.

title: User:Talitsky/sandbox


text:
LMIs in Control/Controller Synthesis/Discrete Time/State Feedback/Closed-Loop Robust Stability and Controller synthesis of Discrete-Time System with Polytopic Uncertainty

Closed-Loop Robust Stability and Controller synthesis of Discrete-Time System with Polytopic Uncertainty
Stability is an important property, stability analysis is necessary for control theory. For robust control, an LMI criterion was developed for the discrete case with closed-loop and open-loop system. The open-loop system is obtained by replacing $$ B = 0 $$..

The System

\begin{align} x_{k+1}&=A_d(\alpha) x_k + B_d(\beta)u_k\\ u_k &= K x_k \end{align}$$

The Data
The matrices $$ A \in R^{n\times n}\; B\in R^{n\times m} \; K\in R^{m\times n}$$.

In the case of robust polytopic uncertainty control we have:

\begin{align}

A &\in \{\sum_{k = 1}^{n} \alpha_k A_k |\text{ } \;\sum_{k = 1}^{n} \alpha_k = 1\}\\ B &\in \{\sum_{k = 1}^{m} \beta_k B_k  |\text{ } \;\sum_{k = 1}^{m} \beta_j= 1\}

\end{align}$$

The Optimization Problem
The following feasibility problem should be solved:

\begin{align} \text{Find} \; &P_{ij}>0, G\text{ is invertible}, L:\\ \begin{bmatrix} P_{ij} & A_iG - B_jL \\ G^T A_i^T - L^T B_j^T &  G + G^T + P_{ij}\end{bmatrix}&>0 & \text{  for   }i = 1,...,n \text{  and   }j = 1,...,m  \\ \end{align}$$

Where $$ L \in R^{m, n}$$, $$ P_{ij}, G \in R^{n,n} = 0 $$ for $$ i = 1,...,n $$ and $$ j = 1,...,m $$ Then our controller $$ K = - LG^{-1}$$

Conclusion:
This LMI allows us to investigate stability for the robust control problem in the case of polytopic uncertainty and gives on the controller for this case

Implementation:

 * - Matlab implementation using the YALMIP framework and SeDuMi solver

Related LMIs:

 * - Discrete Time Stabilizability.
 * - Polytopic stability for continuous time case
 * - Quadratic polytopic stabilization
 * -Quadratic Polytopic Hinf- Optimal State Feedback Control

Return to Main Page:

 * - Main Page.


text: User talk:188.112.77.182

title: User talk:188.112.77.182


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/The power of Christianity's influence in the Western world

=The Power of Christianity in modern society=

This Wikibook is going to explore the issue of power (direct or indirect) through the disciplines of medicine, gender studies and ecology.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Vaccines, Surrogacy, assisted reproduction, synthesis meat

Zoom meeting on 24/11 with Apolline, Guillaume and Rose: Power in the Anti-Vaccine Movement https://ucl-new-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1637568208&context=PC&vid=UCL_VU2&lang=en_US&search_scope=CSCOP_UCL&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=local&query=any,contains,anti-vaccine%20movement&offset=0 https://www-tandfonline-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.4161/hv.18371 Saucesoja (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)