Optimization of dysbiosis prevention and correction in children with gastrointestinal disturbance

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-25
Author(s):  
Zinaida Ivanovna Pirogova
Keyword(s):  
Central Problem ◽  
Remedial Measures ◽  
Gastrointestinal Disturbance

Dysbiosis prevention and correction in children with gastrointestinal disturbance is the most disputable and currently central problem of modern gastroenterology. In the article are summarized studding resultes of liquid probiotics “Bifidumbacterinum “Bifishka” and Narine-forte effectiveness for gastrointestinal disturbance remedial measures optimization.

The Orchestra as Acting Area in Greek Tragedy

Ramus ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Ley ◽  
Michael Ewans
Keyword(s):  
Greek Tragedy ◽  
Close Relation ◽  
Central Problem ◽  
Classical Drama ◽  
Considerable Experience

For some years past there has been a welcome change of emphasis towards the consideration of staging in books published on Greek tragedy; and yet with that change also a curious failure to be explicit about the central problem connected with all stagecraft, namely that of the acting-area. In this study two scholars with considerable experience of teaching classical drama in performance consider this problem of the acting-area in close relation to major scenes from two Greek tragedies, and suggest some general conclusions. The article must stand to some extent as a critique of the succession of books that has followed the apparently pioneering study of Oliver Taplin, none of which has made any substantial or sustained attempt to indicate where actors might have acted in the performance of Greek tragedy, though most, if not all, have been prepared to discard the concept of a raised ‘stage’ behind the orchestra. Hippolytus (428 BC) is the earliest of the surviving plays of Euripides to involve three speaking actors in one scene. Both Alcestis (438 BC and Medea (431 BC almost certainly require three actors to be performed with any fluency, but surprisingly present their action largely through dialogue and confrontation — surprisingly, perhaps, because at least since 458 BC and the performance of the Oresteia it is clear that three actors were available to any playwright.

When Is True Belief Knowledge?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Foley
Keyword(s):  
True Belief ◽  
Theory Of Knowledge ◽  
Central Problem ◽  
Significant Aspect ◽  
Coming To Know ◽  
Contemporary Epistemology ◽  
What Matters

A woman glances at a broken clock and comes to believe it is a quarter past seven. Yet, despite the broken clock, it really does happen to be a quarter past seven. Her belief is true, but it isn't knowledge. This is a classic illustration of a central problem in epistemology: determining what knowledge requires in addition to true belief. This book finds a new solution to the problem in the observation that whenever someone has a true belief but not knowledge, there is some significant aspect of the situation about which she lacks true beliefs—something important that she doesn't quite “get.” This may seem a modest point but, as the book shows, it has the potential to reorient the theory of knowledge. Whether a true belief counts as knowledge depends on the importance of the information one does or doesn't have. This means that questions of knowledge cannot be separated from questions about human concerns and values. It also means that, contrary to what is often thought, there is no privileged way of coming to know. Knowledge is a mutt. Proper pedigree is not required. What matters is that one doesn't lack important nearby information. Challenging some of the central assumptions of contemporary epistemology, this is an original and important account of knowledge.

Operators and meaning of wave function

2016 ◽  
pp. 4039-4042
Author(s):  
Viliam Malcher
Keyword(s):  
Wave Function ◽  
Quantum Theory ◽  
State Vector ◽  
The State ◽  
Physical Significance ◽  
Central Problem ◽  
Quantum Mechanical ◽  
Mechanical Description ◽  
Quantum Mechanical Description ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Theory

The interpretation problems of quantum theory are considered. In the formalism of quantum theory the possible states of a system are described by a state vector. The state vector, which will be represented as |ψ> in Dirac notation, is the most general form of the quantum mechanical description. The central problem of the interpretation of quantum theory is to explain the physical significance of the |ψ>. In this paper we have shown that one of the best way to make of interpretation of wave function is to take the wave function as an operator.

On the Positivity of $\mathbf{{a}}$-Linear with Random Finitely

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Bolton
Keyword(s):  
Representation Theory ◽  
Central Problem ◽  
Numerical Representation

Let $\rho$ be an ultra-unique, reducible topos equipped with a minimal homeomorphism. We wish to extend the results of \cite{cite:0} to trivially Cartan classes. We show that $d$ is comparable to $\mathcal{{M}}$. This leaves open the question of uniqueness. Moreover, a central problem in numerical representation theory is the description of irreducible, orthogonal, hyper-unique graphs.

Against Capital Punishment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin S. Yost
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Remedial Measures ◽  
Procedural Injustice ◽  
Central Claim

Against Capital Punishment offers an innovative proceduralist argument against the death penalty. Worries about procedural injustice animate many popular and scholarly objections to capital punishment. Philosophers and legal theorists are attracted to procedural abolitionism because it sidesteps controversies over whether murderers deserve death, holding out a promise of gaining rational purchase among death penalty retentionists. Following in this path, the book remains agnostic on the substantive immorality of execution; in fact, it takes pains to reconstruct the best arguments for capital punishment and presumes the appropriateness of execution in limited cases. At the same time, the book contends that the possibility of irrevocable mistakes precludes the just administration of the death penalty. The heart of Against Capital Punishment is a philosophical defense of the well-known irrevocability argument, which analyzes the argument’s premises, establishes their validity, and vindicates them against objections. The central claim is that execution violates the principle of remedy, which requires legal institutions to remedy their mistakes and to compensate those who suffer from wrongful sanctions. The death penalty is repellent to the principle of remedy by dint of its irrevocability. The incompatibility of remedy and execution is the crux of the irrevocability argument: because the wrongly executed cannot enjoy the obligatory remedial measures, execution is impermissible. Against Capital Punishment also reveals itself to be free from two serious defects plaguing other versions of proceduralism: the retributivist challenge and the problem of controversial consequences.

The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec D. Walen
Keyword(s):  
Side Effect ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Central Problem ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Practical Level

This book operates on two levels. On the more practical level, its overarching concern is to answer the question, When is it permissible to use lethal force to defend people against threats? The deeper concern of the book, however, is to lay out and defend a new account of rights, the mechanics of claims. This framework constructs rights from the premise that rights provide a normative space in which people can pursue their own ends while treating each other as free and equal fellow-agents whose welfare morally matters. According to the mechanics of claims, rights result from first weighing competing patient-claims on an agent, then determining if the agent has a strong enough agent-claim to act contrary to the balance of patient-claims on her, and then looking to see if special claims limit her freedom. The strength of claims in this framework reflects not just the interest in play but the nature of the claims. Threats who have no right to threaten have weaker claims not to be harmed than bystanders who might be harmed as a side effect, all else equal. With this model, a central problem in just war theory can be pushed to the margins: determining when people have forfeited their rights and are liable to harm. Threats may lack a right not to be killed even if they have done nothing to forfeit it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document