Hw Rational Functions Name: Fill & Download for Free

The word “treatment” is disease-biased language. The term “autism” is too broadly used for a variety of brain configurations.But, I want to help you, so I’m going to make a few guesses:If by “Autism” you mean Regressive Autism as studied by Dr. Kanner (hence, it sometimes being referred to as Kanner’s Syndrome) then the best treatment is early intervention with Regressive Autism specialists, probably in a group-home environment. Regressive Autism is a severe disability, perhaps more severe than an extreme case of Down’s Syndrome. The parents should receive counseling from Kanner’s Syndrome experts and be emotionally prepared for a difficult journey.If by “Autism” you mean High Functioning Autism or Aspergers as studied by Dr. Hans Asperger (hence, it sometimes being referred to as Aspergers Syndrome) then you should read many of my answers on this subject. Here’s the short version:LoveCompassionHopeAnd an absolute acceptance that while your child is different they are not less.They are not damaged, diseased or broken. They merely have a different type of brain, one which is more logical and rational than Neuro-Typicals. The child will probably lack social skills but also be immune to peer pressure. The child will probably develop passions and expertise early in life. The child will probably not be good at team sports involving eye-hand coordination but be capable of excelling in individual sports that emphasis endurance and focus.The most important advice I can give is to ignore absolutely any so-called “expert” who accidentally lumps an Aspie kid in with the tremendous disadvantages of a Kanner child. In twenty years, educators, psychologists and researchers will look back with shame on this era when we Aspies were categorized as disabled. And putting all of us under one umbrella takes away from the tremendous amount of help Kanner children need.Aspies fight to be heard as fully functioning human beings. Advocates for Kanner kids angrily demand the needs of their extremely disabled children not be dismissed. And so neither side gets what they need. Great job, DSM 5!I’m an Aspie. My son is an Aspie. I hate using the word but its the best term to currently describe who and what we are. All the myths we’ve heard simply don’t apply. My son is an amazing, loving, gentle, kind, funny, bright, engaged and empathetic individual.I didn’t know I was an Aspie when I was a child. You NTs had a different set of names for me back then; loser, geek, nerd, dweeb, idiot, retard, failure and reject. I was identified (not diagnosed, IDENTIFIED…you diagnose disease. You identify equally valid branches of the human species) about six months after our medical doctor suggested we have our son evaluated. Since then, my family has read dozens of books, participated in a national research project, met with dozens of families and now hosts a private email discussion group with other Aspie/HFA families.We don’t need a treatment. We need your understanding and acceptance. ABA treats us like puppies and is incredibly expensive. I’ve found a far simpler approach; I wait until my son is intellectually capable of understanding a concept and then we talk about it. Who knew it could be that simple?You’ll find most of the people who want to talk you into using an expensive therapy have something to sell. But, they aren’t Autistic and they don’t listen to us Austistics. If they did, they’d be deeply ashamed of how they treat us and dismiss us.

It pains me to say it, but OOP is hard to explain because the idea has been thoroughly confused by the industry to the point where almost nobody understands it. There are two competing definitions of OOP, which I am going to refer to as the “Alan Kay definition” and the “Grady Booch definition”.The Alan Kay definitionThe term “object-oriented programming” was coined by Alan Kay who went on to realise his ideas in Smalltalk. He explained the history in 2003:At Utah sometime after Nov 66 when, influenced by Sketchpad, Simula, the design for the ARPAnet, the Burroughs B5000, and my background in Biology and Mathematics, I thought of an architecture for programming. It was probably in 1967 when someone asked me what I was doing, and I said: "It's object-oriented programming".The original conception of it had the following parts.I thought of objects being like biological cells and/or individual computers on a network, only able to communicate with messages (so messaging came at the very beginning -- it took a while to see how to do messaging in a programming language efficiently enough to be useful).I wanted to get rid of data. The B5000 almost did this via its almost unbelievable HW architecture. I realized that the cell/whole-computer metaphor would get rid of data, and that "<-" would be just another message token (it took me quite a while to think this out because I really thought of all these symbols as names for functions and procedures.My math background made me realize that each object could have several algebras associated with it, and there could be families of these, and that these would be very very useful. The term "polymorphism" was imposed much later (I think by Peter Wegner) and it isn't quite valid, since it really comes from the nomenclature of functions, and I wanted quite a bit more than functions. I made up a term "genericity" for dealing with generic behaviors in a quasi-algebraic form.I didn't like the way Simula I or Simula 67 did inheritance (though I thought Nygaard and Dahl were just tremendous thinkers and designers). So I decided to leave out inheritance as a built-in feature until I understood it better.My original experiments with this architecture were done using a model I adapted from van Wijngaarten's and Wirth's "Generalization of Algol" and Wirth's Euler. Both of these were rather LISP-like but with a more conventional readable syntax. I didn't understand the monster LISP idea of tangible metalanguage then, but got kind of close with ideas about extensible languages draw from various sources, including Irons' IMP.The second phase of this was to finally understand LISP and then using this understanding to make much nicer and smaller and more powerful and more late bound understructures. Dave Fisher's thesis was done in "McCarthy" style and his ideas about extensible control structures were very helpful. Another big influence at this time was Carl Hewitt's PLANNER (which has never gotten the recognition it deserves, given how well and how earlier it was able to anticipate Prolog).The original Smalltalk at Xerox PARC came out of the above. The subsequent Smalltalk's are complained about in the end of the History chapter: they backslid towards Simula and did not replace the extension mechanisms with safer ones that were anywhere near as useful.And his definition is:OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other systems in which this is possible, but I'm not aware of them.There’s a lot to unpack here, but the central idea is that object-oriented programming is a way of structuring software systems analogous to a biological system, with “cells” (which we’ll call “objects”) that hide their internals, and communicate with other objects via a kind of signalling mechanism (which we’ll call “messaging”).The Grady Booch definitionIn the late 80s and early 90s, came the great drive to computerisation and automation of industry. This gave rise of formal processes and computer-aided software engineering tools, and in particular, software engineering tool vendors. With it came a flood of influential books and the “gurus” who wrote them, such as Rebecca Wirfs-Brock (et al) Designing Object Oriented Software, Grady Booch Object-oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, and the Gang of Four Design Patterns. Martin Fowler also deserves a mention as one of the “gurus”.I’m singling out Grady Booch here for a reason, though. He was the chief scientist at Rational Software, one of the major CASE tool vendors, which was bought by IBM in the early 2000s, and the Booch method was probably the biggest influence on OOAD as it came to be.Booch’s definition is:Object-oriented programming is a method of implementation in which programs are organized as cooperative collections of objects, each of which represents an instance of some class, and whose classes are all members of a hierarchy of classes united via inheritance relationships.There are three important parts to this definition: object-oriented programming (1) uses objects, not algorithms, as its fundamental logical building blocks (the “part of” hierarchy […]); (2) each object is an instance of some class; and (3) classes are related to one another via inheritance relationships (the "is a" hierarchy […]). A program may appear to be object-oriented, but if any of these elements is missing, it is not an object-oriented program. Specifically, programming without inheritance is distinctly not object-oriented; we call it programming with abstract data types.Compare and contrastIn both definitions, you have the key idea of objects cooperating to act as a whole. However, there is an important difference between the two. To Kay, the key feature of object-oriented programming was messaging. To Booch, the key feature of object-oriented programming was inheritance.I’m going to try to be fair to Booch and the other “gurus” here, because they were not actually concerned about programming as much as they were concerned about analysis and design, which is the stuff that you need to do between the point where you have a problem posed to you and the point where you actually write code. In the late 80s and early 90s, this was seen as the hard problem, and so Booch and the gurus “won”.However, we now know, 25 years later, that the emphasis on inheritance was a serious mistake. Implementing interfaces/protocols is a good idea, and inheriting interfaces is a good idea, but inheriting implementations is not. Implementation inheritance does not, in fact, model “is a” relationships correctly, as illustrated by the circle-ellipse problem. It often causes maintenance headaches such as the fragile base class problem. For these and many other reasons, the “gurus” of today all advise to use composition rather than inheritance if at all possible.Alexander Stepanov, who designed the Standard Template Library for Ada and C++, was even more scathing:STL is not object oriented. I think that object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people. In a sense, I am unfair to AI: I learned a lot of stuff from the MIT AI Lab crowd, they have done some really fundamental work: [examples deleted]I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types.I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting - saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all.I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work.(The whole interview is worth reading in its entirety, by the way.)Stepanov is a programmer, and fiercely proud of it. He is not a systems analyst or systems architect. As such, he is correct in noticing that the Booch vision of object-oriented programming holds back the craft of programming.But maybe it’s still good analysis and design and architecture. As much as I agree with Stepanov and everyone else who loathes inheritance, the “squillions of classes with small methods” model of programming scales to millions of lines of code and hundreds of programmers in a way that technically superior models do not.On the other hand, if you wrote your software better, maybe you wouldn’t need millions of lines of code and hundreds of programmers. I have worked on million-line codebases written and maintained by six good programmers. But they have to be good programmers. Maybe that’s the catch.So why is it hard to explain?OOP is hard to explain because you really can’t understand OOP, as the term is used today, without understanding OOAD from whence it came. Without the analysis and design methodology that the current definition of OOP was made for, it makes no sense.It makes no technical sense, no philosophical sense, and no theoretical sense.And nonsense is hard to explain.

Money is cheap in western countries. And everyone wants intelligent cheap labor who will do what you say 24/7 without break for 5 years. Don't end up with a wrong advisor because they wanted cheap labor and you didn't do your HW properly. Value yourself. Do proper research before jumping into PhD market. The kind of questions you should be asking is: if you want to spend next 5 and probably the rest of your life thinking about these questions and this field, where could this land you up in 5 years, could it be a faculty position in a top school, will you learn something from your advisor, etc. A low quality advisor mostly makes a low quality student. I would recommend almost always do a Master before a PhD. In your early 20s, you are at the peak of your abilities, physically and mentally. And PhD is a defining moment in your life, as you are seen (and probably rightly so) as a graduate of a particular school and more importantly student of a particular advisor. You become your advisor personality wise and through their problems. Choose wisely!In your early twenties, more often than not, you don't know what you really like and want to do. All professors know this and exploit this to a degree where they will enrope you in their fields. Ideally University should be student centric where it gives you a space and a mentor who help you figure out what you want to do and what is best for you. Unfortunately, all Universities these days are business centric and are running a business of publishing papers in a hot field.There are a lot of papers being published every year, a big majority of them being junk. Only very few are meaningful. You don't want to end up being one of the people writing junk papers for your professor who has money and who needs people to write papers so he/she can put it on the grant site. More info can be found here: Academic DiariesIf you want to do meaningful research, avoid people who are doing it as a business. You can do good research only with good researchers and not with managers.If you are a smart (but untrained) person, it is almost useless to do phd in a mediocre school with a mediocre person. Do a Masters, build your profile and apply for top people in top schools. A good mark of a top professor is how many people have they placed in the US academia. Also LOR is quite important. Many top people take students from those who have worked with someone they trust and whose recco they can trust. So build yourself accordingly.Research is very community oriented space. So while choosing the right field is quite important, choosing the right advisor is equally so, since if you work with an advisor, you will inherit their problems, tools and community. Thus it is very important if you choose the right advisor who is well connected in the community to give you the right leverage in your work and job. Else you will have to swim against the current to find your place in the community which does not recognize you as such. Most professors in Top 5 are well connected or known. Not so much in mid/lower rank Universities.In the same way a 20 year old person can run way faster and longer than an older person, people above 50/55 tend to get slower in thinking because of age. So they may have a lot of good experience and know all the details about a field, but they may not have new ideas.US Universities tend to hire people from Top 5- MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, Caltech for professor positions. And for a reason. Also you are defined by people around you. So in these top universities you will hang out and meet one of the top people from all over the world. That's an unparalleled experience. You are sum of people you surround with. And after you graduate from here, you are on top of the world. There is no one above you. The whole world will respect you and you will have doors open to everything. For a lot of people PhD is a waste of time other than with top people in top schools. And so is being a professor not in a top school. It takes some doing to maintain standards but they could be quite worth it.Most Professors view this as a business of writing papers, getting grants and graduating students because that is what the system wants from them. Also a good chunk of people are just exploiting the tenure system. Only a very few love their field and see this as their lifetime opportunity to study what they want to and the real worldly things are external factors that are taken care of on the side. Those are the most amazing people you want to be associated with, to feel the magic of a field. If you want to feel the greatness, work with someone who has seen it too.Choose a field you really love. Something that you can think of thinking about for the rest of your life.Getting an academic job in a top university is considered the holy grail for any PhD. It takes more than just intelligence to get there. Good work. Good advisor. Politics. So before starting a PhD have a long term vision and choose accordingly before it is too late.In your time as a PhD student, you are going to go through a lot of stuff, academic and personal. You will be vulnerable at times and would need support, in your career, and otherwise. You want to at a place and around people who are supportive and have an advisor who is magnanimous in spirit and doesn't see you as a prey or a worker, but someone whom he wants to mature as an independent researcher and a leader in their field (conditioned on if they are one already).Most people regret doing PhD. It is not that they were not smart enough, but because either they ended up with wrong advisor/ wrong field. A good compatible advisor and a good compatible field is the holy grail.Getting a faculty position at a Top University is the most painful real-world thing one has to do. So even if you really enjoy your work, think ahead on this. Work with a big name which opens door to such places quite easily. Being a Prof at a mid/lower rank school may not be quite that much fun as you wouldnt get quality students. Think ahead (preferably before you were even born).There are a lot of very talented people in the developing world being wasted. If you are a decently smart person from a developing country, you are already at a much disadvantage as compared to people with similar talent in the developed world. The best strategy for you, as I said before, is to develop yourself by less commitment such as by doing Masters, gaining some perspective about yourself and the world and then applying to top places.This is something that is true for all professors: No matter how much you love the field, your position/University matters the most. So if they care so much about positions, better still you do it too.If you did your Bachelors in a STEM field (as most people do in developing countries), you still have a chance to move to more theoretical areas such as physics and math where most talented people from the developed people go. Don't confine yourself within any boundaries. Think of yourself as a product of billion of years of evolution and throw yourself at what you want to do. Make a path like doing internships and master in particular field to go for PhD in that field later. Professors at these top universities understand your background and also the human potential and are not confined by narrow thinking. If you are really talented and have this killer drive to excel in a field, make a path for yourself and the universe will conspire to help you.Think of PhD as this amazing opportunity to grow as a person in one of the best environments in the world and more importantly learn a field from a leader in the field (something that you see yourself taking forward if you wish to join academia). It is once in a lifetime opportunity to delve into something meaningful that syncs with your inner psyche and that makes you not just another person on the planet but the best a human being can accomplish (like an olympics of sorts), where you have to leave all the junk food and get lean and just focus on yourself to see what is the best you can achieve!Towards the age of 27-28, you will realize all the people you met in life have specialized and have gone their own paths and you would start having too. Some people would have contributed towards you, most wouldn't have, some would have been hurtful. About at this time, what you will be left with is what you have learnt and the meaningful experiences you have had and the connections that you made that could last lifetime. What you learnt from courses and through your advisor will be one of the most meaningful experiences that will stay with you for your lifetime. Try to optimize on these. Overall in your life your mental and physical abilities grow and are quite impressive at around 27 when they peak, and will gradually decline after that. All it would matter is how you fed yourself, mentally and physically during your time on this planet.Life is a function of strong and meaningful people around you. The biggest impact you will have is through the people around you and whom you interact with. The world is quite big and full of ideas that often contradict each other. It is quite easy to get engulfed in the whirlpools of such ideas through people around you, which would seem rational in smaller field of view, but could lead to nothingness at best or doom at the worst. Generally speaking, the best strategy is to surround yourself with smart and rational people who have similar tastes as you. They would not only help you rationalize the world efficiently but also multifold your experience of things that you enjoy and give you new perspectives and experiences in the most condensed form (also these will be the people who will take you on your merit and will not engage in prejudice of any sorts (such as racism etc) or based on cultural differences, and thus will leave you out of the real world negative energy). This is what professors look for in a student to enhance their own and the world's experience with new ideas and you should do too when looking for people, and in choosing a school/place that may do that for you. (while real world may take decades to understand and imbibe a new idea that is rational, a smart person can do that in seconds and build on it more with you. In real world you talk about daily random trivia and can get entangled in real world issues such as politics/prejudices/lack of understanding and so on, while with these people you can talk about high-dimensional stuff and unravel the secrets of the universe, and live a very efficient meaningful life. The thrill of life being one of those people and having such people around, while doing a math-y PhD which is like being on drugs in itself, is indescribable. On the other side, being a smart-rational person in a pool of fools is too).Every person around you, big or small, went through similar process as you of navigating the world and their circumstances and making choices, rationally or foolishly, and has a perspective based on that. In that sense their experience could be quite valuable (or not), but no one really has any authority on how things should be like. After being at a position of power, everyone is just lamenting the loss of youth and maximizing their own gains. The only thing that triumphs the man-made world is logic and your own intuition.The campuses of top schools such as Berkeley, MIT, Princeton, Caltech, Stanford are one of the very few idyllic places in the world which allow you to stay away from the negative experiences of the real world that can hamper your growth and provide you with enough steam so you can run fast and bring the fruits of human ingenuity for yourself and the humanity. Try to cash in on that the most. On the downside, it could make you less interactable with the people from the real world and your colleagues might be your natural friends.One of the most rewarding part of doing PhD in STEM field is the interaction with intelligent people such as your advisor and your classmates where you go at 100 miles an hour, and it feels like running a marathon continuously for years and years, something you haven't experienced thus far.Climate also has a huge impact on your work and productivity. In cold places such as eastern Canada, and midwest or Northeast US, where it is quite cold for half a year, your quality of life and productivity suffers.You are far better than you think you are. It should have been the purpose of the university to bring that out but unfortunately that is not how it works.Realize that the shiny world we are living in is quite new: The scientific thought process is just 150 years old and developed part of the world is only few decades old. So the life is quite inefficient today and we are all learning and evolving, and there is quite a lot of learning and evolving to do. Many times the best of people don't make the cut because of wrong place or wrong time. Avoid such instances. A lot of things that are happening are somewhat random for instance the people you will bump into and the field and the advisor you may choose and your partner in life (if any) and so on, although there is a lot of causality and a definite trend. In an ideal world say 1000 years from now, everyone will be studying Quantum gravity and playing violin and living to the best of their talents. However, we aren't there yet and a LOT of people who could be great violinists or Quantum physicists are writing codes for Google and Facebook and doing Machine learning, not all to their fault, but because of the conditions they grew up in and the poor/uninformative decisions they made early on, and the circumstances thereafter. So a lot of talent is wasted not because of who you are but because of how the world stands today. However, there are great violinists and Quantum physicists today and it is probably possible for you to be one too if you are strategic and thoughtful enough and bold enough to make the right decisions. In this respect, I said do masters build your profile and don't settle for anything less than the best in your early lives as this will give a direction to the rest of your life.Related to the above point, realize that a lot of the system and fields and professors are there because there was demand/money in the system, and the system wanted someone to think and give solutions on these. So from a professor's perspective, he/she wrote a grant (in few weeks) and got easy money and will hire a student to work on it. The grant committee can not judge the work. They do it only by the conference/journal names (if they really care). The Prof will try to ensure this much happens, while you will spend some of the best, most productive years of your life thinking about some useless stuff that you may not care about or what you want to do and where does your creativity lie. In that sense many PhDs are just (very low paying) jobs given by the system, mostly done by (naive inexperienced) international students. That is why in top schools more than 60% PhDs, and in many cases much more, are international students and so are many professors who went through the same thing and are now doing it with the students. Maybe as the world will become more even and developing countries will become developed, this systematic oppression will taper off but it does stand today and you should be aware of it.All lives come with immense but finite potential and energy. It takes a lot of careful thinking and doing to build a good non wasteful life, and spend it in the most productive and meaningful ways.