• 한국안전학회지
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.16-26
• /
• 1996

A.Satyanarayana와 다른이들은 [1.2.5]에서 domination이론을 사용하여 네트워크의 정확한 신뢰도 계산을 위한 새로운 topologic formel을 발견하였다. 이들은 이식을 통하여 그래프 G로 표현되는 어떤 시스템이나 네트워크의 신뢰도 계산을 위하여 path 또는 k-tree를 사용한 Inclusion-Exclusion식에 나타나는 항들(=2$^{m}$ -1, m은 path나 k-tree의 수)중 서로 소거되지 않는 항들은 그래프 G의 acyclic k-부분그래프(subgraph)와 1대 1로 상응되며, cyclic-과 k-부분그래프들에 상응되는 항들은 소거되어지거나 Inclusion-Exclusion식에 나타나지 않는 -결국 신뢰도계산에 필요없는- 항들임을 밝혔다. 이들은 이성질을 이용하여 그래프 G의 정확한 신뢰도계산을 위한 빠른 알고리즘을 제시하였다. 이 알고리즘은 결국 그래프 G의 path나 k-tree를 기초로 하는 Inclusion-Exclusion식에서 나타나는 항들중 소거되지 않는 항들에 1:1로 대응하는 acyclic k-subgraph만을 찾아 신뢰도계산을 할수있게 하여 준다. 이때 acyclic k-subgraph들은 각각의 domination을 갖으며, 이들은 Inclusion-Exclusion식에서 대응되는 항의 부호들의 합과 같다. 본 논문에서는 첫째로 신뢰도계산을 위하여 주어진 어떤 그래프 G에서 G를 구성하는 선(edge)을 기초로 하는 어떤 임의로 주어진 family M(G) (예: cutset이나 path, 또는 k-tree 등의 family)에 의한 (부분)그래프의 domination에 대한 성질을 관찰하고 몇가지 식을 유도한후, k-tree의 family K(G)를 기초로 한 어떤 그래프의 domination과 Inclusion-Exclusion식과의 관계를 고찰하고, 이식의 강력함과 응용의 가능성을 A. Satyanarayana의 topologic formel의 재증명을 통하여 보인다.

• 영미문화
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.219-239
• /
• 2014

Arjun Appadurai contends that "the new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order that cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models" (32); though discerning and perhaps becoming more and more apt, Appadurai's observation of the breakdown of the "center-periphery" binary appears as mere "academic jargon" in the lives of new immigrants, tackling the murky waters of identity politics in the transcultural technoscape of modern America in Kunzru's Transmission. Kunzru's antihero is Arjun Mehta, a software technician, who comes to America with high hopes of realizing the "American Dream." To a certain extent, Arjun himself is culpable of resurrecting the "center" as he prioritizes America and its values over all else. Despite his best efforts, Arjun cannot prevail in the perilous politics of exclusion/inclusion, and is relegated into a "high-tech coolie," exploited for his technological savvy. Even as the "center-periphery" binary stays intact in the production of an (Asian) American identity, it becomes undone in the hands of this "would-be" American; ultimately denied inclusion into America, Arjun unleashes a destructive virus that has major global consequences. In a sense, the boundary that separates the center and the periphery comes down as both collectively become victims to Arjun's retributive malfeasance. Arjun seems to rely on the "American" promise that old allegiances (to a national identity) are now defunct and new ones can be easily forged; as Kunzru's Transmission demonstrates with the tragic story of Arjun, the complex politics of identity production in America does not necessarily deliver on this promise. This essay hence aims to examine the politics of (national) belonging in the age of transnationalism.

• 한국과학교육학회지
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.123-132
• /
• 1994

The experimental evidence evaluation of the 11th grade students(N:91) was investigated. Specially, the influence of students' ideas about optical phenomena and presented evidence types on their evidence evaluation, and the influence of students' ideas on their causal inference modes were investigated. After eliciting the students' ideas about shadow phenomena and conformity of their idea, the experimental results with a binary outcome were presented as the evidence. Then the students were asked to evaluate the evidence. Again students' ideas were elicited. Most of students had causal ideas such that the shape of object(96%) and the inclination of screen(75%) were causes of shadow shape, not the shape(70%) and color(92%) of light source. In the case of the shape of object and the color of light source, most students(70%) believed strongly their ideas. Most responses(80%) in the evidence were evidence-based, and 12% of them were theory-based. There was no significant difference of reponses types between students with causal ideas(81%) and students with non-causal ideas(78%), between covariable and non-covariable evidence. But in the case of non-causal ideas, covariable evidence was more likely to yield evidence-based reponses than non-covariable evidence. If students had preconcepts inconsistent(84%) with the evidence, they were more likely to make evidence-based responses than the students with consistent ideas (75%) with the evidence. Especially in the case perceptually biased evidence, this tendency was marked. In the case of covariable evidence, many students made inclusion inferences(40%) rather than uncertainty inferences(32%). In the case of uncertainty inferences(94%), students more likely to make evidence-based reponses than inclusion inferences(83%) and exclusion infernces(88%). In the case of inclusion inferences and exclusion infernces, students tended to make idea-based responses and distort the evidences. In conclusion, when the students evaluate the experimental evidences, their ideas influence the causal inference modes. Especially, according to the conformity of the preconcepts and logical relation of evidences, the inference modes are more strongly depended upon the preconcepts rather than evidences.