Modelling and Prediction of Concrete Compressive Strength Using Machine Learning

The compressive strength of concrete plays an important role in determining the durability and performance of concrete. Due to rapid growth in material engineering finalizing an appropriate proportion for the mix of concrete to obtain the desired compressive strength of concrete has become cumbersome and a laborious task further the problem becomes more complex to obtain a rational relation between the concrete materials used to the strength obtained. The development in computational methods can be used to obtain a rational relation between the materials used and the compressive strength using machine learning techniques which reduces the influence of outliers and all unwanted variables influence in the determination of compressive strength. In this paper basic machine learning technics Multilayer perceptron neural network (MLP), Support Vector Machines (SVM), linear regressions (LR) and Classification and Regression Tree (CART), have been used to develop a model for determining the compressive strength for two different set of data (ingredients). Among all technics used the SVM provides a better results in comparison to other, but comprehensively the SVM cannot be a universal model because many recent literatures have proved that such models need more data and also the dynamicity of the attributes involved play an important role in determining the efficacy of the model.

Zero-Avoiding Transducers, Length Separable Relations, and the Rational Asymmetric Partition Problem

We consider the problem of partitioning effectively a given irreflexive (and possibly symmetric) rational relation [Formula: see text] into two asymmetric rational relations. This problem is motivated by a recent method of embedding an [Formula: see text]-independent language into one that is maximal [Formula: see text]-independent, where the method requires to use an asymmetric partition of [Formula: see text]. We solve the problem when [Formula: see text] is length-separable, which means that the following two subsets of [Formula: see text] are rational: the subset of word pairs [Formula: see text] where [Formula: see text]; and the subset of word pairs [Formula: see text] where [Formula: see text]. This property is satisfied by all recognizable, all left synchronous, and all right synchronous relations. We leave it as an open problem when [Formula: see text] is not length-separable. We also define zero-avoiding transducers for length-separable relations, which makes our partitioning solution constructive.

EVALUATION OF THE RATIO OF THE CAPACITY OF THE BUCKET HYDRAULIC SHOVELS AND LOAD TRUCKS IN SURFACE MINING OF COAL DEPOSITS

The article deals with the excavation and loading complexes with the use of road transport, ensuring the efficiency of the open development of coal deposits. Established rational relation to the capacity of the trucks and the capacity of the bucket hydraulic excavators.

Multi-Sequential Word Relations

Rational relations are binary relations of finite words that are realised by non-deterministic finite state transducers (NFT). A multi-sequential relation is a rational relation which is equal to a finite union of (graphs) of partial sequential functions, i.e. functions realised by input-deterministic transducers. The particular case of multi-sequential functions was studied by Choffrut and Schützenberger who proved that given a rational function (as a transducer), it is decidable whether it is multi-sequential. Their procedure is based on an effective characterisation of unambiguous transducers that do not define multi-sequential functions, that we call the fork property. In this paper, we show that the fork property also characterises the class of transducers that do not define multi-sequential relations. Moreover, we prove that the fork property can be decided in PTime. This leads to a PTime procedure which, given a transducer, decides whether it defines a multi-sequential relation.

KONTEKSTUALISASI MUNĀSABAH PADA TAFSIR MUSHAFÎ DAN TAFSIR NUZÛLÎ: Analisis komparatif antara tafsir Tarti>b al-Mus}h}af dan tafsir Tarti>b al-Nuzu>l.

Qur'an has a multi-dimensional, ranging from rational empirical dimension to mystical dimension of spiritual-emotional. One empirical dimension of Qur'an is a form of text that can be seen, read, studied and understood. While mystical and spiritual emotional dimensions are irrational. Empirical studies of Qur’an are often faced with its historical problem self. Because that rational is irrelevance with historical facts. To rationalize the discrepancy between empirical and historical facts, al-muna>sabah are conducted. Furthermore, Qur'an also has a historical fact, such historically strategic position in declining Qur’an continuously. In fact, history facts of Qur’an are more strength than empirical ones (manuscripts orderly). According to the fact above, this study focuses on the application of muna>sabah towards tartîb al-mus}h}af and tartîb al-nuzu>l in interpreting surah and those results. This study conducted inductive-deductive approach and method.It can be summed up that 1). Interpreting surah in tafsir mushaî by using muna>sabah can be done detail and musfassir concerns on munasabah of the whole elements in Qur’an. While, in tafsir nuzu>li>, muna>sabah could be done though recording the continuum of surah. the aim is to show the whole content of Qur’an in order not to be understood partially. Munāsabah in tafsir mushafî is structural-emotional, while munāsabah in tafsir nuzûlî has ratinal-cultural pattern 2). Interpreting surah by using munāsabah approach in tafsir mushafî produces rational relation among the elements in Qur’an. While in the tafsir nuzûlî, it emphases on the strengthen of history and the records.Even they differ; both perform similar steps such other commentators done. They do not lead unclear and unequivocal interpretation suspicious to the conclusion that a clear and interpretation, except only reinforces the dominant idea in the previous theories Keywords: munāsabah, tafsi>r mus}h}afī, tafsi>r nuzu>li

Equality and Singapore’s First Constitutional Challenges to the Criminalization of Male Homosexual Conduct

In 2013, in Lim Meng Suang and Kenneth Chee Mun-Leon v Attorney-General1 and Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General,2 the High Court of Singapore delivered the first judgments in the jurisdiction considering the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes acts of ‘gross indecency’ between two men, whether they occur in public or private. The Court ruled that the provision was not inconsistent with the guarantees of equality before the law and equal protection of the law stated in Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. The result was upheld in 2014 by the Court of Appeal in Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General3 with slight differences in the reasoning. This article examines the courts’ analysis of equality law, and submits in particular that the courts ought to re-evaluate whether they should apply a presumption of constitutionality, refuse to assess the legitimacy of the object of the impugned provision, and rely on a standard of mere reasonableness or lack of arbitrariness when determining if a rational relation exists between the provision’s object and the differentia underlying a classification used in the provision.

According to the Spirit and not to the Letter: Proportionality and the Singapore Constitution

When interpreting the fundamental liberties in the Singapore Constitution, courts presently do not engage in a proportionality analysis - that is, a consideration of whether limitations on rights imposed by executive or legislative action bear a rational relation with the object of the action, and, if so, whether the limitations restrict rights as minimally as possible. The main reason for this appears to be the expansive manner in which exceptions to the fundamental liberties are phrased, and the courts’ deferential attitude towards the political branches of government. This paper considers how the rejection of proportionality has affected the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, and freedom of religion, and argues that although proportionality was originally a European legal doctrine, its use in Singapore is not only desirable but necessary if the Constitution is to be regarded as guaranteeing fundamental liberties instead of merely setting out privileges that may be abridged at will by the Government.

A POSITIVIST ROUTE FOR EXPLAINING HOW FACTS MAKE LAW

In “How Facts Make Law” and other recent work, Mark Greenberg argues that legal positivists cannot develop a viable constitutive account of law that meets what he calls the “the rational-relation requirement.” He argues that this gives us reason to reject positivism in favor of antipositivism. In this paper, I argue that Greenberg is wrong: positivists can in fact develop a viable constitutive account of law that meets the rational-relation requirement. I make this argument in two stages. First, I offer an account of the rational-relation requirement. Second, I put forward a viable positivist account of law that I argue meets this requirement. The account that I propose is a version of Scott Shapiro's Planning Theory of Law. The version of Shapiro's account that I propose combines (1) the account of concepts and conceptual analysis put forward by David Chalmers and Frank Jackson with (2) the account of the conceptlegal institution(and its conceptual connections to the conceptlegal norm) that we get from a certain reading of Shapiro's Planning Theory. In addition to providing a compelling response to Greenberg's argument in “How Facts Make Law,” I argue that the explanation for why my response to Greenberg works underscores one of the central problems facing legal antipositivism: namely, its lack of a convincing account of the nature of legal institutions.