PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS REGARDING SELECTION, IDENTIFICATION AND PROMOTION OF TALENTS IN FOOTBALL

The term “selection” has provoked disputes among various people, some of whom, for institutional reasons, defending the cause of a sport that enjoys great popularity and aims to attract all possible talents on the football field. From our point of view, football selection is not a unique, singular action. It has a lasting character and is carried out in several stages. The efficiency of the selection greatly depends on the quality of the training process and is largely conditioned by the way in which the particularities of growth and development of children and juniors are taken into account. By using the scientific selection process in football, the path to achieving remarkable (often incredible) performance becomes shorter. The selected individual undergoes a careful training process and tries to obtain maximum efficiency in the shortest time (depending on the biological potential). Also, the purpose of this paper is to improve the duration of the educational and training process, based on the improvement of the selection process correlated with the sports training stages in the football game. Selection and training have to be regarded according to the following training-type models: children, juniors III, juniors II, juniors I, which must take into account the criteria: health status, social condition, physical ability, body size, general motor skills, favorable motor skills, psychological ability, technical and tactical training, and game testing. We believe that, by contributing to the knowledge of the above-mentioned particularities, this paper eliminates the possibility of methodological errors that can have irreversible negative consequences.

From Simple to Composite Agency: On Kirk Ludwig’s From Individual to Plural Agency

According to Kirk Ludwig, only primitive actions are actions in a primary and non-derivative sense of the term ‘action’. Ludwig takes this to imply that the notion of collective action is a façon de parler – useful perhaps, but secondary and derivative. I argue that, on the contrary, collective actions are actions in the primary and non-derivative sense. First, this is because some primitive actions are collective actions. Secondly, individual and collective composites of primitive actions are also actions in the primary and non-derivative sense. Hence, individual action and collective action are ontologically on a par. Ludwig also exaggerates the contrast between individual and collective action by introducing a “sole agency requirement” in his account of the semantics of singular action sentences. However, sole agency is merely typically pragmatically implicated by singular action sentences, not entailed by them. If I say, “I turned on the light”, after we each flipped one of two switches that together turned on the light, then I might be misleading the audience, but what I say is true. Finally, I argue that, contra Ludwig, individuals often have “I-intentions” to bring about an event that can be satisfied even if there are co-agents who bring about the event in the same way.

Individual and Collective Action: Reply to Blomberg

Olle Blomberg challenges three claims in my book From Individual to Plural Agency (Ludwig, Kirk (2016): From Individual to Plural Agency: Collective Action 1. Vols. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.). The first is that there are no collective actions in the sense in which there are individual actions. The second is that singular action sentences entail that there is no more than one agent of the event expressed by the action verb in the way required by that verb (the sole agency requirement). The third, is that an individual intention, e.g. to build a boat, is not satisfied if you don’t do it yourself. On the first point, I grant that Blomberg identifies an important distinction between simple and composite actions the book did not take into account, but argue it doesn’t show that there are collective actions in the same sense there are individual actions. On the second point, I argue from examples that the collective reading of plural action sentences doesn’t entail the distributive reading, which requires the sole agency requirement on singular action sentences. This settles the third point, since it entails that if you intend to build a boat, you are successful only if you are the only agent of it in the sense required by the verb.

A remark on fullness of some group measure space von Neumann algebras

Recently Houdayer and Isono have proved, among other things, that every biexact group $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}$ has the property that for any non-singular strongly ergodic essentially free action $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}\curvearrowright (X,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707})$ on a standard measure space, the group measure space von Neumann algebra $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}\ltimes L^{\infty }(X)$ is full. In this paper, we prove the same property for a wider class of groups, notably including $\text{SL}(3,\mathbb{Z})$. We also prove that for any connected simple Lie group $G$ with finite center, any lattice $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}\leqslant G$, and any closed non-amenable subgroup $H\leqslant G$, the non-singular action $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}\curvearrowright G/H$ is strongly ergodic and the von Neumann factor $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}\ltimes L^{\infty }(G/H)$ is full.

Causal Relationships Between Fertilizers and Yield for Winter Wheat

The interdependence between the doses of fertilizers and the yield for winter wheat was assessed with the help of certain quantitative indicators and correlation indicators: production level, production increase per fertilization intervals, correlation coefficient, influence coefficients and capitalization of fertilizers. Nitrogen ensures wheat yields within the limits of 2562.56 – 4070.44 kg/ha, with a production increase between 508.12 and 2016 kg. The nutrients with phosphorus and potassium bring about production increase from 77.87 to 1289.48 kg by singular action or in association with nitrogen. Balanced fertilization ensures, by the synergic effect of the nutrients, a production increase between 493.61 and 2930.31 kg. At the same time, the influence coefficients of nitrogen fertilizers increase from 1.21 to 1.51, in correlation with PK. The degree of correlation of variables fertilizers – yield is high, the values R2 varying from 0.902 to 0.977.