Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Click here to log in or create user.

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

Contagion Lemma

Answer

C being weakly decisive for a versus b implies C being (not just weakly) decisive for all pairs of alternatives.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

#computation #social-choice

We call a coalition C ⊆ N of individuals a *decisive coalition* for alternative a versus alternative b if \(N_{a\succ b}^P\supseteq C\) implies \(a\succ b\)

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

We call a coalition C ⊆ N of individuals a *decisive coalition* for alternative a versus alternative b if \(N_{a\succ b}^P\supseteq C\) implies [...]

Answer

\(a\succ b\)

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

We call a coalition C ⊆ N of individuals a decisive coalition for alternative a versus alternative b if \(N_{a\succ b}^P\supseteq C\) implies \(a\succ b\)

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

We call a coalition C ⊆ N of individuals a *[...]* for alternative a versus alternative b if \(N_{a\succ b}^P\supseteq C\) implies \(a\succ b\)

Answer

decisive coalition

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

We call a coalition C ⊆ N of individuals a decisive coalition for alternative a versus alternative b if \(N_{a\succ b}^P\supseteq C\) implies \(a\succ b\)

#computation #decisive-coalition #dictatorship #paretian #social-choice #weakly

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #decisive-coalition #dictatorship #paretian #social-choice #weakly

Question

To say that f is [...] is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

Answer

weakly Paretian

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

Tags

#computation #decisive-coalition #dictatorship #paretian #social-choice #weakly

Question

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is [...] is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

Answer

dictatorial

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

Tags

#computation #decisive-coalition #dictatorship #paretian #social-choice #weakly

Question

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as [...], and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

Answer

to say that the grand coalition N is decisive

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

Tags

#computation #decisive-coalition #dictatorship #paretian #social-choice #weakly

Question

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say [...]

Answer

that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

To say that f is weakly Paretian is the same as to say that the grand coalition N is decisive, and to say that f is dictatorial is the same as to say that there exists a singleton that is decisive.

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

An SWF f is weakly Paretian if

Answer

for any two alternatives a, b ∈ A, it is the case that, if \(a\succ_i b\) for all individuals i ∈ N, then also \(a\succ b\).

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

#computation #independent-of-irrelevant-alternatives #social-choice

A social welfare function f is independent of irrelevant alternatives if, for any two alternatives a, b ∈ A, the relative ranking of a and b by the social preference order only depends on the relative rankings of a and b provided by the individuals

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #independent-of-irrelevant-alternatives #social-choice

Question

A social welfare function f is [...] if, for any two alternatives a, b ∈ A, the relative ranking of a and b by the social preference order only depends on the relative rankings of a and b provided by the individuals

Answer

independent of irrelevant alternatives

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

A social welfare function f is independent of irrelevant alternatives if, for any two alternatives a, b ∈ A, the relative ranking of a and b by the social preference order only depends on the relative rankings of a and b provided by the individuals

Tags

#computation #independent-of-irrelevant-alternatives #social-choice

Question

A social welfare function f is independent of irrelevant alternatives if, for any two alternatives a, b ∈ A, the relative ranking of a and b by the social preference order only depends on [...]

Answer

the relative rankings of a and b provided by the individuals

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

A social welfare function f is independent of irrelevant alternatives if, for any two alternatives a, b ∈ A, the relative ranking of a and b by the social preference order only depends on the relative rankings of a and b provided by the individuals

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

Splitting Lemma

Answer

we can always split a decisive coalition C into two nonempty subsets C_{ 1} ,C_{ 2} with C_{ 1} ∪ C_{ 2} = C and C_{ 1} ∩ C_{ 2} =∅ such that one of C_{ 1} and C_{ 2} is decisive for all pairs as well.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

#computation #social-choice

We call C weakly decisive for a vs. b if we have at least that \(N_{a\succ b}^P=C\) implies \(a\succ b\)

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

We call C weakly decisive for a vs. b if we have at least that [...] implies \(a\succ b\)

Answer

\(N_{a\succ b}^P=C\)

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

We call C weakly decisive for a vs. b if we have at least that \(N_{a\succ b}^P=C\) implies \(a\succ b\)

Tags

#arrows-impossibility-theorem #computation #proof #social-choice

Question

Outline Proof: (Arrow, 1951). When there are three or more alternatives, then every SWF that is weakly Paretian and IIA must be a dictatorship. Hint: use two important lemmas.

Answer

Prove Contagion Lemma using weak Pareto and IIA. Prove Splitting Lemma using Contagion Lemma, transitivity, weak Pareto and IIA. Apply Splitting Lemma multiple times.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

Tags

#arrows-impossibility-theorem #computation #social-choice

Question

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?

Answer

When there are three or more alternatives, then every SWF that is weakly Paretian and IIA must be a dictatorship.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

What is the problem with many results of classical social choice theory?

Answer

They neglected the computational effort required to determine the outcome of the rules they sought to characterize.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

#computation #social-choice

The practical acceptability of a voting rule or a fair allocation mechanism depends not only on its normative properties, but also on its implementability in a reasonable time frame.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

The practical acceptability of a voting rule or a fair allocation mechanism depends not only on its [...], but also on its implementability in a reasonable time frame.

Answer

normative properties

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

The practical acceptability of a voting rule or a fair allocation mechanism depends not only on its normative properties, but also on its implementability in a reasonable time frame.

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

The practical acceptability of a voting rule or a fair allocation mechanism depends not only on its normative properties, but also on its [...].

Answer

implementability in a reasonable time frame

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

The practical acceptability of a voting rule or a fair allocation mechanism depends not only on its normative properties, but also on its implementability in a reasonable time frame.

#computation #social-choice

a decision problem P is defined as a pair L _{P} ,Y _{P} where L_{ P} is a formal language, whose elements are called instances, and Y_{ P} ⊆ L_{ P} is the set of positive instances.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

a decision problem P is defined as a pair L _{P} ,Y _{P} where L_{ P} is a formal language, whose elements are called instances, and Y_{ P} ⊆ L_{ P} is the [...].

Answer

set of positive instances

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

a decision problem P is defined as a pair L P ,Y P where L P is a formal language, whose elements are called instances, and Y P ⊆ L P is the set of positive instances.

#computation #decision-problem #graph-theory #social-choice

the problem of deciding whether a directed graph is acyclic is defined by the set L_{ P} of all directed graphs, while Y_{ P} is the set of all directed acyclic graphs.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #decision-problem #graph-theory #social-choice

Question

Give an example of a decision problem in terms of directed graphs and acyclic graphs.

Answer

the problem of deciding whether a directed graph is acyclic is defined by the set L_{ P} of all directed graphs, while Y_{ P} is the set of all directed acyclic graphs.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

the problem of deciding whether a directed graph is acyclic is defined by the set L P of all directed graphs, while Y P is the set of all directed acyclic graphs.

#computation #social-choice

A function (or search) problem is a set (L_{ P} ,S_{ P} ,R_{ P} ), where L_{ P, }R_{ P} is a decision problem and S_{ P} is another formal language (the set of possible solutions) and R_{ P} ⊆ L_{ P} × S_{ P} is a relation between instances and solutions, where (I, S) ∈ R_{ P} means that S is a solution for I.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

#computation #social-choice

An example of a function (search) problem (L_{ P, }S_{ P, }R_{ P}) in terms of graph theory is: find a nondominated vertex in a directed graph, if any and find all vertices with maximum outdegree are both search problems. Solving the function problem on instance I ∈ L_{ P} consists in outputting some S ∈ S_{ P} such that (I,S) ∈ R_{ P} , if any, and “no solution” otherwise.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

An example of a function (search) problem (L_{ P, }S_{ P, }R_{ P}) in terms of graph theory is: find a nondominated vertex in a directed graph, if any. Solving the function problem on instance I ∈ L_{ P} [...] and “no solution” otherwise.

Answer

consists in outputting some S ∈ S_{ P} such that (I,S) ∈ R_{ P} , if any,

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

arch) problem (L P, S P, R P ) in terms of graph theory is: find a nondominated vertex in a directed graph, if any and find all vertices with maximum outdegree are both search problems. Solving the function problem on instance I ∈ L P <span>consists in outputting some S ∈ S P such that (I,S) ∈ R P , if any, and “no solution” otherwise.<span><body><html>

#computation #social-choice

Formally, an algorithm is* polynomial* if there exists a k ∈\(\mathbb{N}\) such that its running time is in O(n^{ k} ), where n is the size of the input. Here, O(n^{ k} ) denotes the class of all functions that, for large values of n, grow no faster than c · n^{ k} for some constant number c (this is the “Big-O notation”). For instance, when k = 1, the running time is linear, and when k = 2, the running time is quadratic in n.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Tags

#computation #social-choice

Question

Formally, an algorithm is* polynomial* if ^{[...] Here, O(n k ) denotes the class of all functions that, for large values of n, grow no faster than c · n k for some constant number c (this is the “Big-O notation”). For instance, when k = 1, the running time is linear, and when k = 2, the running time is quadratic in n.}

Answer

there exists a k ∈\(\mathbb{N}\) such that its running time is in O(n^{ k} ), where n is the size of the input.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

Formally, an algorithm is polynomial if there exists a k ∈\(\mathbb{N}\) such that its running time is in O(n k ), where n is the size of the input. Here, O(n k ) denotes the class of all functions that, for large values of n, grow no faster than c · n k for some constant number c (this is the “Big-O notation”). For instance, wh

#computation #social-choice

The famous P = NP conjecture states that the hardest problems in NP do not admit polynomial-time algorithms and are thus not contained in P. Although this statement remains unproven, it is widely believed to be true. Hardness of a problem for a particular class intuitively means that the problem is no easier than any other problem in that class. Both membership and hardness are established in terms of reductions that transform instances of one problem into instances of another problem using computational means appropriate for the complexity class under consideration. Most reductions in this book rely on reductions that can be computed in time polynomial in the size of the problem instances, and are called polynomial-time reductions. Finally, a problem is said to be complete for a complexity class if it is both contained in and hard for that class. For instance, deciding whether a directed graph possesses a Hamiltonian cycle is NP-complete

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

#computation #social-choice

Besides P and NP, several other classes will be used in this book. Given a decision problem P = L P ,Y P , the complementary problem of P is defined as P = L P ,L P \ Y P . Given a complexity class C, a decision problem belongs to the class coC if P belongs to C. Notably, coNP is the class of all decision problems whose complement is in NP. For instance, deciding that a directed graph does not possess a Hamiltonian cycle is in coNP (and coNP-complete).

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

#computation #social-choice

1 .5 basic concepts in theoretical computer science 19 C , we denote by C C the set of all problems that can be solved by an algorithm for C equipped with C -oracles, where a C -oracle solves a problem in C (or in coC ) in unit time. The class P 2 , defined as P NP , is thus the class of all decision problems that can be solved in polynomial time with the help of NP-oracles, which answer in unit time whether a given instance of a problem in NP is positive or not. The class P 2 is the subset of P 2 consisting of all decision problems that can be solved in polynomial time using “logarithmically many” NP-oracles. Equivalently, P 2 may be defined as the subset of P 2 for which a polynomial number of NP-oracles may be used, but these need to be queried in parallel, that is, we cannot use the answer to one oracle to determine what question to put to the next oracle. Finally, P 2 = NP NP and P 2 = co NP 2 . Thus, for instance, P 2 is the class of decision problems for which the correctness of a positive solution can be verified in polynomial time by an algorithm that has access to an NP-oracle. The following inclusions hold: P ⊆ NP, coNP ⊆ P 2 ⊆ P 2 ⊆ P 2 , P 2 . It is strongly believed that all these inclusions are strict, although none of them was actually proven to be strict. Interestingly, P 2 and (to a lesser extent) P 2 , P 2 and P 2 play an important role in computational social choice (and indeed, we find them referred to in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, and 17). We occasionally refer to other complexity classes (such as PLS or #P) in the book; they are introduced in the chapter concerned. For a full introduction and an extensive overview of computational complexity theory, we refer the reader to Papadimitriou (1994) and Ausiello et al. (1999).

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

#computation #social-choice

1.5.2 Linear and Integer Programming One notable computational problem is that of solving linear programs. A linear program consists of a set of variables x j (1 j n), a set of constraints indexed by i (1 i m), and an objective. Constraint i is defined by parameters a ij (1 j n) and b i , resulting in the following inequality constraint: n j=1 a ij x j b i . The objective is defined by parameters c j , resulting in the following objective: n j=1 c j x j . The goal is to find a vector of nonnegative values for the x j that maximizes the value of the objective while still meeting all the constraints (i.e., all the inequalities should hold). Natural variants, such as not requiring variables to take nonnegative values, allowing equality constraints, having a minimization rather than a maximization objective, and so on, are not substantively different from this basic setup. There is a rich theory of linear programming; for the purpose of this book, what is most important to know is that linear programs can be solved to optimality in polynomial time. Thus, if a computational problem can be formulated as (equivalently, reduced to) a polynomial- sized linear program, then it can be solved in polynomial time.

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Question

The nose, like the rest of the face, has an **[...]** blood supply.

Answer

[default - edit me]

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

and columella. View Media Gallery Previous Next: Nerves Blood Supply and Lymphatics <span>The nose, like the rest of the face, has an abundant blood supply. The arterial supply to the nose may be principally divided into (1) branches from the internal carotid, namely the branches of the anterior and posterior ethmoid arteries from the ophth

#bayesianism #cognitive-science #computation #computational-psychology

What Is Computational Cognitive Modeling? Research in computational cognitive mod- eling, or simply computational psychol- ogy, explores the essence of cognition (in- cluding motivation, emotion, perception, etc.) and various cognitive functionalities through developing detailed, process-based understanding by specifying corresponding computational models (in a broad sense) of representations, mechanisms, and pro- cesses. It embodies descriptions of cognition in computer algorithms and programs, based on computer science (Turing, 1950); that is, it imputes computational processes (in abroadsense)ontocognitivefunctions,and thereby it produces runnable computational models. Detailed simulations are then con- ducted based on the computational models (see, e.g., Newell, 1990; Rumelhart et al., 1986; Sun, 2002

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

#bayesianism #cognitive-science #computation #computational-psychology

Computational models are mostly process-based theories, that is, they are mostly directed at answering the question of how human performance comes about; by what psychological mechanisms, processes, 1Therootsofcognitivesciencecan,ofcourse,be traced back to much earlier times. For example, Newell and Simon’s early work in the 1960s and 1970s has been seminal (see, e.g., Newell & Simon, 1976). The work of Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960) has also been highly influential. See Chap- ter 25 in this volume for a more complete historical perspective (see also Boden, 2006). and knowledge structures; and in what ways exactly. In this regard, note that it is also possible to formulate theories of the same phenomena through so-called product theories, which provide an accurate functional account of the phenomena but do not commit to a particular psychological mechanism or process (Vicente & Wang, 1998). Product theories may also be called blackbox theories or input-output theories. Product theories do not make predictions about processes (even though they may constrain processes). Thus, product theo- ries can be evaluated mainly by product measures. Process theories, in contrast, can be evaluated by using process measures when they are available and relevant (which are, relatively speaking, rare), such as eye movement and duration of pause in serial recall, or by using product measures, such as recall accuracy, recall speed, and so on. Evaluation of process theories using the latter type of measures can only be indirect, because process theories have to generate an output given an input based on the processes postulated by the theories (Vicente & Wang, 1998). Depending on the amount of process details specified, a computational model may lie somewhere along the continuum from pure product theories to pure process theories. There can be several different senses of “modeling” in this regard, as discussed in Sun and Ling (1998). The match of a model with human cognition may be, for exam- ple, qualitative (i.e., nonnumerical and rela- tive) or quantitative (i.e., numerical and ex- act). There may even be looser “matches” based on abstracting general ideas from ob- servations of human behaviors and then de- veloping them into computational models. Although different senses of modeling or matching human behaviors have been used, the overall goal remains the same, which is to understand cognition (human cogni- tion in particular) in a detailed (process- oriented) way. This approach of utilizing comp

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

#bayesianism #cognitive-science #computation #computational-psychology

. As related by Hintzman (1990), “The common strategy of trying to reason backward from behav- ior to underlying processes (analysis) has drawbacks that become painfully apparent to those who work with simulation mod- els (synthesis). To have one’s hunches about how a simple combination of processes will behave repeatedly dashed by one’s own computer program is a humbling experience that no experimental psychologist should miss” (p. 111). One viewpoi

status | not read | reprioritisations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

last reprioritisation on | reading queue position [%] | |||

started reading on | finished reading on |

Question

regardless of

Answer

If something happens regardless of something else, it is not affected or influenced at all by that other thing.

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |

Tags

#english

Question

regardless off

Answer

this is the answer

status | not learned | measured difficulty | 37% [default] | last interval [days] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

repetition number in this series | 0 | memorised on | scheduled repetition | ||||

scheduled repetition interval | last repetition or drill |