3. On the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, and Professor C. P. Smyth's Views concerning it

1869 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 235-238
Author(s):  
A. D. Wackerbarth
Keyword(s):  
Linear Measure ◽  
Great Pyramid ◽  
Ancient Writer

The author gives a detailed statement of the theories of Professor Smyth, as given in the Transactions of this Society, Vol. XXIII. Part III. He then, after heartily commending the zeal and diligence of the Professor, brings forward objections to some of his views. 1. As to the metron or unit of linear measure. Mr Wackerbarth objects that this measure was utterly unknown to the ancient Egyptians—appearing in no Egyptian document or monument whatever, nor in any ancient writer who describes the condition of the Egyptians.

Microgravity probes the Great Pyramid

1987 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Lakshmanan ◽  
Jacques Montlucon
Keyword(s):  
Great Pyramid

Demosthenes, or Pseudo-Demosthenes, xlv (In Stephanum i)

Antichthon ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 18-26
Author(s):  
L. Pearson
Keyword(s):  
Fourth Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ancient Writer

The First Oration Against Stephanus stands apart from the other speeches delivered by Apollodorus which, though certainly spurious, are included in the Demosthenic corpus. It does not share their amateurish qualities and is commonly regarded as a genuine work of Demosthenes. But admirers of the orator would be happier if it could be proved spurious. It may, for all we know, have been an acceptable practice in the fourth century for Athenian speech-writers to write for both sides, but (like Plutarch) we cannot help thinking the worse of him if he supported Apollodorus in an attack on Phormio, after previously writing a speech for Phormio. The Pro Phormione was delivered in support of a paragraphe to show that Apollodorus had no basis for an action against Phormio. It made such an impression on the jury that they would not even listen to any reply, and Apollodorus now tries to recover himself by bringing an action for false evidence against Stephanum, who had been one of Phormio’s witnesses. Like the other speeches delivered by Apollodorus In Stephanum i seems to have been recognized and accepted by Callimachus in his collection of Demosthenic speeches, and Plutarch takes it to be genuine. Aeschines charges Demosthenes with letting Apollodorus see the speech that he wrote for Phormio, before it was delivered. He regards this an an indication of his lack of integrity, but says nothing about writing for both sides. It has been argued that Demosthenes wrote the speech as a political favour for Apollodorus, who shared his views about the Theoric Fund, but this explanation, though widely accepted by modern scholars, is not supported by any ancient writer.

scholarly journals A question of Gross and the uniqueness of entire functions

1995 ◽  
Vol 138 ◽  
pp. 169-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-Xun yi
Keyword(s):  
Entire Function ◽  
Nevanlinna Theory ◽  
Entire Functions ◽  
Linear Measure ◽  
Finite Linear

For any set S and any entire function f letwhere each zero of f — a with multiplicity m is repeated m times in Ef(S) (cf. [1]). It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the notations of the Nevanlinna Theory (see, for example, [2]). It will be convenient to let E denote any set of finite linear measure on 0 < r < ∞, not necessarily the same at each occurrence. We denote by S(r, f) any quantity satisfying .

2. On some points in the Metrology of the Great Pyramid

1866 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 198-199
Author(s):  
C. Piazzi Smyth
Keyword(s):  
17Th Century ◽  
Sources Of Error ◽  
Great Pyramid ◽  
Scientific Accuracy ◽  
John Taylor

This paper was an attempt to submit to a severe and searching examination, the very new and apparently important ideas contained in the work, published four years ago by Mr John Taylor of London, and entitled “The Great Pyramid; why was it Built?” To this end, the original authorities for measures of the Pyramid, had been extensively referred to, from Professor John Greaves in the 17th century, down to Colonel Howard Vyse and Dr Lepsius in the 19th; and their various and sometimes conflicting numerical statements had been computed with all due attention to scientific accuracy, as well as every endeavour to eliminate both personal and other sources of error in tbe observations.

scholarly journals An Item Response Modeling Approach to Cognitive Load Measurement

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Fitzgerald Ehrich ◽  
Steven J. Howard ◽  
Sahar Bokosmaty ◽  
Stuart Woodcock
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Item Response ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Linear Measure ◽  
Mental Load ◽  
Relative Difficulty ◽  
Item Response Modeling ◽  
Modeling Approach ◽  
Response Modeling

The accurate measurement of the cognitive load a learner encounters in a given task is critical to the understanding and application of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). However, as a covert psychological construct, cognitive load represents a challenging measurement issue. To date, this challenge has been met mostly by subjective self-reports of cognitive load experienced in a learning situation. In this paper, we find that a valid and reliable index of cognitive load can be obtained through item response modeling of student performance. Specifically, estimates derived from item response modeling of relative difficulty (i.e., the difference between item difficulty and person ability locations) can function as a linear measure that combines the key components of cognitive load (i.e., mental load, mental effort, and performance). This index of cognitive load (relative difficulty) was tested for criterion (concurrent) validity in Year 2 learners (N = 91) performance on standardized educational numeracy and literacy assessments. Learners’ working memory (WM) capacity significantly predicted our proposed cognitive load (relative difficulty) index across both numeracy and literacy domains. That is, higher levels of WM were related to lower levels of cognitive load (relative difficulty), in line with fundamental predictions of CLT. These results illustrate the validity, utility and potential of this objective item response modeling approach to capturing individual differences in cognitive load across discrete learning tasks.

Sem calibration in the micrometer and submicrometer ranges by means of a periodic linear measure

2000 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 346-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ch. P. Volk ◽  
Yu. A. Novikov ◽  
A. V. Rakov
Keyword(s):  
Linear Measure ◽  
Periodic Linear
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document