Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ego

2008-02-12T18:53:53Z

TruthinessBee: Spelling --> between

In [[Freudian psychology|Freudian psychoanalysis]], '''ego''', from the Latin term for "I", is one of the three primary components of the human [[mind]]. It was put forth by [[Sigmund Freud]]. Technically, the ego is the entity which is considered to meditate between the [[id]], the [[super-ego]], and the physical world, that is, the element of the mind which forms the interface between the primal desires present in the mind, and the more intellectualized portion, which consists of societal regulations and the suchlike, while taking into account the presence of reality. As such, it is primarily concerned with the preservation of the individual. It may allow some of the desires of the id to be fulfilled, but only if its determination of the potential consequences of this are of such a nature that they will not pose a significant hazard the the individual.

Although much of Freud's theory is considered to be outmoded by modern [[psychology|psychologists]] and doctors<ref>[http://acdtest.wordpress.com/2002/12/16/whos-afraid-of-sigmund-freud/ Who's Afraid of Sigmund Freud?]</ref>, the entities which he suggested have become somewhat engrained in modern society, and are frequently invoked by laymen to be able to gain a better, though superficial, understanding of the psychoanalytical conceptualization of the human mind.

The term ''ego'' has gained a good deal of meaning other than the sense in which which Freud used it, perhaps most notably to refer to [[self-esteem]], although frequently in a negative sense.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Second Epistle of Peter

2007-11-15T19:34:37Z

TruthinessBee:

The '''Second Epistle of Peter''', also abbreviated as simply '''2 Peter''', is a book of the [[New Testament]] of the [[Holy Bible]]. Written, at least in part, by the apostle [[Peter]], the letter denounces false teachers who pervert the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]] and his [[apostles]]. Saint Peter also discusses the end of the world, employing the beautiful phrase, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8), and explaining that God wishes all to be saved.

==Authorship==

Perhaps no other letter has been subject to such criticism and accusations of forgery as the second epistle of Peter. These arguments have been advanced in spite of the fact that certain unique aspects of the letter all but exclude this possibility. Here careful analysis of these positions will be made.

The opening verse of the letter states that it has been written by “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). In many places, the author clearly presents himself as Peter the Apostle, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2 Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the [[Transfiguration]] (2 Peter 1:16-18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2 Peter 3:1; presumably a reference to the First Epistle of Peter), and he called [[Paul]] the Apostle “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).

The internal claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique. “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and out of all the ancient literature it appears only in Acts 15:14, and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”). “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the [[Apostolic Fathers]], or in any pseudepigraphic (forged) literature.<ref> M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. 9; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> The First Epistle of Peter uses simply the name “Peter”, and it is unlikely that a later writer attempting to feign an original letter would use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter."

This is not the only characteristic that distinguishes the letter from the known forgeries of antiquity. First, the common convention in ancient forgeries, when attempting to add a sense of realism to their claims to authoritative authorship (by an apostle or the like) was to adopt a first-person narrative style. However, 2 Peter nowhere employs this convention, even in the passage concerning the Lord's Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the Holy Gospel – something unexpected of a forger. Additionally, forged documents, which are later in date than the apostolic texts, tend to added embellishments to the gospel accounts, a feature completely lacking in this letter.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'', p. 27.</ref> Also unusual is the description of Paul as “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15). Later literature referred to Paul as “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, and thus the subdued usage in the letter is more fitting of genuine Petrine use than of a later forgery.<ref>J. B. Major, ''The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter'' (1907), p. 166; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 826; references to quotes from antiquity are 1 Clement 47.1 and Polycarp, ''Ad Phil.'' 11; Polycarp, ''Ad Phil''. 3; Ignatius, ''Ad Eph''. 12.2.</ref> Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16) runs counter to the tendency of forgers to enhance the heroic qualities of the alleged author.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 827.</ref> Hence, Donald Guthrie concluded that, if the letter were pseudepigraphy, it would be in many respects unparalleled with other such literature, so much so that it would be “of its own class”.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>

One of the main points cited by critics is the textual evidence that the author incorporated elements of the [[Epistle of Jude]], and from this it has been conjectured than an apostle would not himself use another source (often in such arguments the authenticity of Jude is also disparaged). Before any refutations are elaborated it is worth observing that such speculation need not be accepted as definitive.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961), p. 10-11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in ''Tyndale New Testament Commentary'' (1987).</ref> Donald Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 831; on a reason for the use of Jude, see E. H. Plumptre, ‘The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude’, in ''The Cambridge Bible of School and Colleges'' (1879), p. 80.</ref> But, besides this, another possibility is that the textual evidence can be interpreted to point the other way, namely that the Epistle of Jude used 2 Peter. In this interpretation, Jude would have extracted information from 2 Peter and added a doxology, perhaps being motivated by the recent fulfillment of the prophetic statements of 2 Peter.<ref>S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250; F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), pp. 145-146; C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901).</ref> Lastly, the opinion of Ben Witherington III should be noted. The scholar argued that 2 Peter, as we have today, is a composite document including points taken from the Epistle of Jude but containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as 2 Peter 1:12-21.<ref>Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, ''Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers'' (1985), pp. 187-192.</ref> Hence, even if credence is given to some points of the critical scholarship, from this it in no sense follows that the text’s claim of Petrine authorship is an error.

Given the flurry of arguments, mostly wholly speculative, that have been made against the authenticity of the letter, it is impossible to sufficiently address every point. However, it is necessary to address the majority of them in brief. The different styles of language between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are often cited as proof that the same author (i.e. Saint Peter) could not have written them both. Very often these linguistic differences are overly stressed, and, even accepting such arguments, it is simply a fallacy to deduce, from such a tiny sample, a complete picture of the style and vocabulary of one author in a way that could exclude either of the letters. But the real difficulty with this position is that it ignores the widespread practice in antiquity of employing secretaries in drafting letters at one’s behest, and it is even explicitly stated in 1 Peter that such a secretary (Silvanus, also called [[Silas]]) has been so utilized. Moving on, other objections include a reference within the letter to the writings of Paul, which is often misinterpreted to be necessarily referring to a complete collection of all his epistles, which would not have been in circulation before Peter’s death. However, the reference in question does not in any sense imply the existence of a complete or authorized corpus of Paul’s letters.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 824.</ref> Historically, Peter and Paul can both be located in [[Rome]] around the same time, creating a plausible opportunity for Peter to become acquainted with some of Paul’s writings - writings which, whatever the case, could have been partially in circulation before Peter’s [[martyrdom]]. The penultimate objection to be addressed is the accusation that the letter's reference to “the fathers”, interpreted as a reference to a bygone generation of [[Christian]] founders, presents a perspective that Peter himself could not have had, since he would not have been far enough removed from this generation. Perhaps the most significant part of this point is the absurd position it puts the critics in, who are perfectly willing to accept that a forger was of such skill as to create a letter wholly unlike other ancient forgeries on so many points, yet was able to make such an obvious blunder. This aside, the solution to the objection is to observe the misinterpretation of the reference in question. The phrase “the fathers” (''οι πατέρες'') is not used to refer to Christian “patriarchs”, or the first generation of Christian leaders, anywhere else in the New Testament or in the Apostolic Fathers and, given the context, is much more likely a reference to the Jewish Patriarchs of the Old Testament.<ref>R. J. Bauckham, ''Jude, 2 Peter (Word)'' 1983, p. 290; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 829.</ref>

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle. Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers. This includes the works of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (d. ''c''. 211), [[Theophilus of Antioch]] (d. ''c''. 183), [[Aristides|Aristides the Athenian]] (d. ''c''. 134), [[Polycarp of Smyrna]] (d. 155), and [[Justin Martyr]] (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref> Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem. The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by [[Origen]] (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as [[canonical]].”<ref> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref> Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered letter to be Petrine in authorship.<ref>M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen, ''Homily in Josh''. 7.1.</ref> It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far. The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] (''c''. 275 – 339), though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of [[Jerome]] (''c''. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref> Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

== Notes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Biblical books]]
[[Category:New Testament]]

Computer engineering

2007-11-15T19:31:01Z

TruthinessBee:

'''Computer engineering''' is a discipline that combines elements of both electrical engineering and computer science. Computer engineers are electrical engineers that have additional training in the areas of software design and hardware-software integration. In turn, they focus less on power electronics and physics.

Computer engineers are involved on all aspects of computing, from the design of individual microprocessors, personal computers, and supercomputers, to circuit design, as well as the integration of computer systems into other kinds of systems (a motor vehicle, for example, has a number of subsystems that are computer and digitally oriented). Common computer engineering tasks include writing embedded software for real-time microcontrollers, designing VLSI chips, working with analog sensors, designing mixed signal circuit boards, and designing operating systems. Computer engineers are also well-suited for research in the field of robotics, which relies on using computers together with other electrical systems.

The first accredited computer engineering degree program in the United States was established at Case Western Reserve University in 1971; as of October 2004 there were 170 ABET-accredited computer engineering programs in the United States.

The high demand for engineers who are able to design and manage all forms of computer systems in industry has led to tertiary institutions around the world to implement a new bachelor’s degree generally called computer engineering. Both computer engineering and electronic engineering programs include analog and digital circuit design into their curriculum.

Besides having a sound knowledge of the mathematics and the sciences which form an integral part of any engineering discipline, computer engineering encompasses topics that are more specific to the discipline, such as:

* [[Algorithm]]s
* [[Computer]] Architecture and Organization
* [[Computer]] Systems Engineering
* Database Systems
* Embedded Systems
* Human-Computer Interaction
* Operating Systems
* Software Engineering
* [[VLSI]] Design and Fabrication

Many of the areas of electronic engineering and computer engineering overlap, such as electronics and digital systems which form the basis of electronic components.

== External links ==
* [http://wwwdsa.uqac.ca/~lsr/emcos/emcos-index.php?page=Computer+Engineering+Conference+Calendar Computer Engineering Conference Calendar]
* [http://www.ieee.org/portal/site Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]

[[Category:Computers]]

Prime number

2007-11-15T19:29:09Z

TruthinessBee:

'''Prime numbers''' are those [[natural number]]s that are divisible by only 1 and itself. The only even prime number is 2. There is no upper limit to the quantity of primes, but there is no known formula for deriving the nth prime. [[Leonhard Euler]] once commented: <blockquote>
''Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate.''
</blockquote>

The probability that a random integer N is prime is roughly 1/ln(N), where ln(N) is the natural logarithm (base ''e'') of N.<ref>http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/primes.htm</ref> This is a formulation of a more general statement known as the [[prime number theorem]].

==The Prime Numbers==
The smallest prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13... . An example of a [[composite number]] is 6, which is evenly divisible by both 2 and 3.

It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using [[Euclid's second theorem]]. If there were a finite number of primes, you could multiply them all together and add 1. The resulting number would show the existence of a new prime, since it would not be divisible by any smaller prime (it would always have a remainder of 1).

To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you would use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]]. Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers greater than 1. Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8</s> 9 <s>10</s> 11 ...

then beginning with 3*3 = 9 cross out every third number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8 9 10</s> 11 ...

Beginning with 5*5 = 25, cross out every fifth number, then repeat for the primes 7, 11, 13, etc. until <math>\sqrt{n}</math>.

==Unique Factorization==
According to the [[fundamental theorem of arithmetic]], proven by [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]], every positive integer has a unique factorization into prime numbers.

This means that every integer larger than 1, can be expressed as a product of one or more [[prime|primes]] in only one way. For example, 132 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 11. There is no other product of primes that equals 132.

There is no effective algorithm for finding a certain integer's unique factorization, and finding the prime factors for large numbers can take considerable time (millions of years) even with the most advanced computers. This is referred to as the prime factorization problem, and it is believed to be NP-complete.

==Primality testing==
To determine whether a number is prime, you can use the trial division method, provided the number you are testing is not too large. Let ''N'' be the number being tested and ''s'' be its square root. Divide ''N'' by each number in the prime table, beginning with 2. If there is no remainder, stop--N is composite. Otherwise, test again with the next largest prime in the table. If the next largest prime is greater than ''s'', stop--''N'' is prime.

For larger values of ''N'', a method based on Fermat's theorem can be used, though it usually requires a computer. Start with the number 1, and double it ''N-1'' times. Divide this number by ''N'', keeping only the remainder. If the remainder is greater than 1, ''N'' is composite. Unfortunately, the converse is not true--if the remainder is 1, ''N'' is ''probably'' prime, but not necessarily. Algorithms which improve on this method exist, and primality testing is today an active subject of mathematical research.

==The Largest Known Prime==

The largest known prime is ''232582657-1''; it was discovered by the '''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search''' ('''GIMPS''')<ref>http://www.mersenne.org/</ref>, a distributed computing project launched by George Woltman in early 1996.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html</ref>

==Mersenne Prime==
A '''Mersenne prime''' is a prime number ''M'' that is of the form ''M = 2n − 1'', where ''n'' is some [[prime number]]<ref>[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MersennePrime.html Mersenne Prime] from Wolfram</ref>. As of April, 2007, only 44 Mersenne Primes have been found. The largest known prime ''232582657-1'', is a Mersenne Prime. The concept of a Mersenne Prime was discovered by the French theologian, philosopher and mathematician [[Marin Mersenne]].

==Riemann hypothesis==
Most mathematicians believe a proof of the [[Riemann hypothesis]] is the best hope for discovering some pattern in the distribution of prime numbers. ''The Clay Mathematics Institute'' has offered a one million dollar prize for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/</ref>

==Cryptography==
The security of [[public-key cryptography]] schemes such as [[RSA]] depend on the difficulty of prime factorization, if a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers is discovered, then such cryptographic schemes could become vulnerable to attack.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
:[http://www.mersenne.org/ ''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search'' project website]
:[http://primes.utm.edu/ Prime Number resource Archieve]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Bill Evans

2007-11-15T19:25:52Z

TruthinessBee:

'''Bill Evans''' was an American [[jazz]] pianist of [[Welsh]] and [[Ruthenian]] descent, who did much to establish the vocabulary of modern jazz [[piano]].

By his own admission, as a teenager "I couldn't play My Country Tis Of Thee without the notes".

However, he eventually learnt to improvise, and was not content to stop after he had achieved a basic level of competence - drawing inspiration from European composers such as [[Chopin]] and [[Debussy]], as well as from contemporary jazz pianists such as [[Horace Silver]] and [[Nat King Cole]], he steadily established a style that was sufficiently distinctive and beautiful to attract the attention of [[Miles Davis]].

A brief period with the Davis band culminated with the recording of [[Kind of Blue]], a landmark jazz album that arguably could never have been what it was without Evans' diffident romanticism.

After leaving Miles Davis' band, he explored the possibilities of the jazz trio - his collaboration with [[Scott LaFaro]] and [[Paul Motian]] produced the landmark Sunday At The Village Vanguard, a recording of the highlights of five sessions recorded at the famous [[New York]] club. Tragically, LaFaro died in a car crash just 11 days later.

Evans' career continued until his death in 1981.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Evans, Bill}}

[[Category:Musicians]]

Factor

2007-11-15T19:25:01Z

TruthinessBee:

A '''factor''' is an [[integer]] that evenly divides another integer. For example, 3 is a factor of 24 because 24 divided by 3 does not leave a remainder. 5 is not a factor of 24.

Factors are sometimes called '''divisors''' to distinguish them from '''prime factors'''. A prime factor is a divisor that is a [[prime number]]. 2 and 3 are prime factors of 24. 6 is not a prime factor because it is a [[composite number]].

The expression of an integer as a product of its prime factors is called a '''prime factorization'''. The prime factorisation of 24 is

:<math>24 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 </math>

which is also written

:<math>24 = 2^3 * 3</math>.

The Prime Factorisation Theorem guarantees that every integer has a unique prime factorization, e.g. 24 =2331, though it may have multiple non-prime factorizations (e.g. 24 = 2 * 12, 6 * 4, 3 * 8).

The number of divisors of an integer may be determined from its prime factorization when expressed in exponent form, by incrementing each exponent by 1 and multiplying the results. In the example above, the exponents of prime factors 2 and 3 are 3 and 1, respectively. The number of divisors of 24 is therefore

:<math>(3 + 1) * (1 + 1) = 8</math>

and they are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Von Steuben

2007-11-15T19:22:42Z

TruthinessBee:

'''Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin Baron von Steuben''' (1730-1794)

Friedrich Von Steuben was a [[Prussian]] general and an [[American]] citizen who was a founding father of the modern [[U.S.]] Army. He was the first Inspector General of American Revolutionary Army, and wrote its first manuals of tactics, military discipline and formal drills. He converted a rag-tag group of revolutionary fighters into a modern, well disciplined efficient and ferocious army [1], [2].

'''Brief Biography'''

Baron von Steuben was born in Magdeburg, [[Prussia]]. He was a son of a Prussian officer. He spent his early childhood in the [[Russian]] Empire since his father was assigned to serve in the Russian Army by Prussian king Frederic Wilhelm I. At the age of 10 von Steuben and his father returned to Prussia. Von Steuben became Prussian officer at the age of 17 [3]. In the course of his military service he became a member of the Prussian General Command Staff. This position gave him a unique opportunity to become an expert in issues related to military discipline and organization of the army [4].

After reaching the rank of captain, 33 year old von Steuben was discharged from the Prussian Army (in 1763). Reasons why he left the army remain to this day enigmatic [5]. Even though shortly after his discharge he received a title of Baron, von Steuben’s next few years of life were characterized as quite misfortunate [6]. He was a career military officer, and clearly he had a hard time making a living in the civilian life. Discouraged by his failures he took a life changing decision to enlist his services with the Continental Army of America [7]. He was able to gather the necessary funds to travel to America and offered his services to American revolutionary forces as an unpaid voluntary officer [8]. He was accepted and with his hard work the modern American Army was born [9]. In 1781 von Steuben sat on the court-martial of the British Army officer Major John André, who was charged with espionage. In the same year he took part as a Major General, in the siege of Yorktown. He became an American citizen in 1783.

After the war he was finally compensated for his service to the young American Nation. He was given a land grant and a handsome pension. Von Steuben died in 1794. To this day his contributions to American military is cited by military manuals and prized by the military historians [1], [2], [10].

'''Significance of Baron von Steuben for US Armed Forces.'''

In 1775 a new country on the American continent was striving for independence and its very existence. The founding fathers of a brand new nation have encountered the problem of not only establishing a new form of government but also of organizing an army able to defend it. This was especially difficult task since the new country was already engaged in war [1]. From the "shot heard around the world" on April 19, 1775 until Valley Forge in 1778, American Continental “army” appeared to be little more than a rag-tag group of unruly civilians. Recognizing this dangerous deficiency General George Washington, through Benjamin Franklin, US Ambassador to France, enlisted an aid of a highly recommended Prussian officer Baron Friedrich von Steuben.

Upon his arrival at Valley Forge on 23 February 1778, von Steuben inspected - what he was told to be - the American Continental Army. To his surprise he was shown a mob consisting of several thousand undisciplined, poorly uniformed, half-starved, and piteously looking men. With a candor typical for a Prussian Staff officer, von Steuben made his first assessment of the military readiness of those soldiers - stating bluntly: "No European army could be kept together in such a state."[1], [11], [12]. He started to work immediately to improve this dismal situation. Immediately, in one night following his dreadful inspection, von Steuben wrote a manual of basic drill movements. The very next day he started to implement those drill instructions in an incremental but steady fashion. First, he selected 120 men and created from them a model company. Then, von Steuben and his aides worked tirelessly day and night instilling a sense of military discipline, order and hierarchy into those crude recruits [13]. Modern American Army Field manual gives the following description of the results of von Steuben’s hard work [1]:

“Discipline became a part of military life for these selected individuals as they learned to respond to command without hesitation. This new discipline instilled in the individual a sense of alertness, urgency, and attention to detail (…). As they mastered the art of drill, they began to work as a team and a sense of pride in themselves and their unit developed. Watching this model company drill, observers were amazed to see how quickly and orderly the troops could be massed and maneuvered into different battle formations.”

After the training of the model company was accomplished its members were distributed throughout the Army as drill teachers. An enormous attention was paid to stringent performance of drill movements. Moreover, an emphasis was put on a strict observance of chain of command, and simplicity and efficiency of military structure [12]. All those elements were modeled rigorously upon battle-tested Prussian military canon [10], [14]. Historians agreed that a new formed American Army was based upon a model far superior to the contemporary armies of such imperial powers as Britain, or France [3], [14], [15], [16]. Ultimately, this superiority along with courage and dedication of all individual soldiers secured numerous future victories of American troops which extended beyond the Revolutionary War. It is one of the most amazing paradoxes of the history - that it was the American Army based upon Prussian military standards - which ultimately defeated the indomitable Army of the Third Reich. It took a Prussian Army style to finally conquer a direct successor of a Prussian military might.

Von Steuben was promoted to Major General and was appointed as first Inspector General of American Armed Forces. Based upon his experience he wrote the first official American field army manual in l779 entitled “The Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States” [17]. This book is known until this day in the military circles as the "Blue Book” [1].

The drill procedures established at Valley Forge were not changed for over 85 years, and most of these drill terms and procedures are still in effect in today’s U.S. Army.

With the passage of time weaponry and armament became more advanced. The details of drill and discipline had to adapt to novel tactical concepts. Still, their spirit and foundations remains the same. Obviously, von Steuben’s drill procedures which are still taught the U.S. Army are not employed on modern battlefields. However, objectives accomplished by his marvelous drill - teamwork, confidence, pride, alertness, attention to detail, esprit de corps, and discipline - are just as important to modern day U.S. Army as at the times of their creator.

'''References:'''

1. Field Manual, Drill and Ceremonies. Vol. FM 22-5. 1971, Washington, DC.: Headquarters Department of the Army.

2. Krewson, M.B., Von Steuben and the German contribution to the American Revolution : a selective bibliography. 1987, Washington: Library of Congress. 44 p.

3. Brandt, A.M., Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben : preussischer Offizier und amerikanischer Freiheitsheld. 2006, Halle: Mitteldeutscher Verlag. 255 p.

4. Giesebrecht, W. and Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz., Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben : Leben, Zeit und Zeitgenossen. 1980, Berlin: Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

5. Kapp, F., Leben des amerikanischen generals Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. 1858, Berlin,: Duncker & Humblot. 2 p.l., xxxii, 667, [1] p.

6. Schmitt, N., Leben und wirken von Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. 1858, Philadelphia,: J. Weik und co. iv, 5-42 p.

7. Ueberhorst, H., Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, 1730-1794 : soldier and democrat = Soldat und Demokrat. 2nd ed. 1981, München ; Baltimore: Moos. 88 p.

8. Thornton, J., Foreign-born champions of the American Revolution. 1st ed. 2003, New York: PowerKids Press. 24 p.

9. Von Zemenszky, E. and R.J. Schulmann, The papers of General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, 1777-1794 : guide and index to the microfilm edition. 1984, Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus International Publications. viii, 160 p.

10. Riling, J.R., et al., Baron von Steuben and his Regulations. 1966, Philadelphia,: R. Riling Arms Books Co. xii, 32, 154 p.

11. Buchholz, I., M. Ballerstedt, and Stadtarchiv Magdeburg., Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, ein Sohn Magdeburgs : Magdeburg 1730-Oneida County 1794. 1996, Magdeburg: Landeshauptstadt Magdeburg Stadtarchiv. 36 p.

12. Cronau, R., The Army of the American Revolution and its organizer. 1923, New York,: R. Cronau. 1 p. l., [1], iii, 150 p.

13. Faust, A.B., Inspector General Frederick William von Steuben; a sketch of his career and personality. 1927, [New York?]: Priv. print. by the Steuben Society of America. 38,[1] p.

14. Cronau, R. and D.H. Tolzmann, The Army of the American Revolution and its organizer : Rudolf Cronau's biography of Baron von Steuben. A Heritage classic. 1998, Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books. xii, 153 p.

15. Adelson, B. and A.M. Schlesinger, Baron von Steuben : American general. Revolutionary War leaders. 2002, Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. 80 p.

16. Davis, B., Heroes of the American Revolution. 1971, New York,: Random House. 146 p.

17. United States. Army., Steuben Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin, and United States. War Dept. Inspector General's Office., Regulations for the order and discipline of the troops of the United States. Part I. 1779, New-York: Printed at Greenleaf's Press. 95, [5] p., VIII folded leaves of plates.
[[category:history]]
[[Category: American Revolutionary War Commanders]]

Integer

2007-11-15T19:19:58Z

TruthinessBee:

An '''integer''' is any whole number, positive, negative, or 0. More precisely, the set of all integers consists of all natural numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}, their negatives {-1, -2, -3, -4, ...} and 0. A formal definition is that it is the only [[integral domain]] whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition.

An integer is a term that describes the amount of something. An integer may be even (divisible by two) or odd (not divisible by two), positive (more than nothing) or negative (less than nothing), whole (undivided) or fractional (divided into smaller parts), and various other classifications, such as prime (only divisible by itself and one).

Every integer larger than 1 has a unique [[prime]] factorizarion.

Some examples of integers: 1, 10/5, 98058493, -87, -3/3, the square root of 9, and 0.

The following numbers are not integers: 5/10, the square root of -9, 8.75, and [[pi]].

[[category:mathematics]]

Tangent

2007-11-15T19:17:51Z

TruthinessBee:

In [[trigonometry]], the '''tangent''' of an angle in a [[right triangle]] is defined as the ratio of the opposite and adjacent sides.

We can also see a relationship between the [[sine]] and [[cosine]] functions:

<math>\tan \theta = \frac{\sin \theta}{\cos \theta} = \cot \left(\frac{\pi}{2} - \theta \right) = \frac{1}{\cot \theta} \,</math>

In [[analytic geometry]], a line which intersects a [[circle]] or [[curve]] at only one point is said to be tangent to that circle or curve. At the point of intersection, the curve and the line have exactly the same [[slope]].

Compare: [[Asymptote]]

[[Category:Mathematics]]