1,800,781 research outputs found
Replication Data for: Active mid-infrared ring resonators
No full textReplication dataset for "Active mid-infrared ring resonators" by Dmitry Kazakov, Theodore P. Letsou, Maximilian Beiser, Yiyang Zhi, Nikola Opačak, Marco Piccardo, Benedikt Schwarz, and Federico Capasso, accepted for publication in Nature Communications (NCOMMS-23-13724
Dmitry Vilensky, Fall 2022, Art & Democracy course
No full textDmitry Vilensky is an artist, writer, and founding member of the Russian art collective Chto Delat? (What is to be done?), a platform initiated in 2003 by a collective of artists, critics, philosophers, and writers with the goal of merging political theory, art, and activism. This lecture was sponsored by the Norman Miller Center in association with the Art & Democracy exhibitions and events in the Fall of 2022
dmitry-kabanov/fickettmodel-reproducibility: Update README file
No full textReproducibility package for the paper on the Fickett mode
Proof Complexity of Natural Formulas via Communication Arguments
No full textA canonical communication problem Search(φ) is defined for every unsatisfiable CNF φ: an assignment to the variables of φ is partitioned among the communicating parties, they are to find a clause of φ falsified by this assignment. Lower bounds on the randomized k-party communication complexity of Search(φ) in the number-on-forehead (NOF) model imply tree-size lower bounds, rank lower bounds, and size-space tradeoffs for the formula φ in the semantic proof system T^{cc}(k,c) that operates with proof lines that can be computed by k-party randomized communication protocol using at most c bits of communication [Göös and Pitassi, 2014]. All known lower bounds on Search(φ) (e.g. [Beame et al., 2007; Göös and Pitassi, 2014; Russell Impagliazzo et al., 1994]) are realized on ad-hoc formulas φ (i.e. they were introduced specifically for these lower bounds). We introduce a new communication complexity approach that allows establishing proof complexity lower bounds for natural formulas.
First, we demonstrate our approach for two-party communication and apply it to the proof system Res(⊕) that operates with disjunctions of linear equalities over ₂ [Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov, 2014]. Let a formula PM_G encode that a graph G has a perfect matching. If G has an odd number of vertices, then PM_G has a tree-like Res(⊕)-refutation of a polynomial-size [Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov, 2014]. It was unknown whether this is the case for graphs with an even number of vertices. Using our approach we resolve this question and show a lower bound 2^{Ω(n)} on size of tree-like Res(⊕)-refutations of PM_{K_{n+2,n}}.
Then we apply our approach for k-party communication complexity in the NOF model and obtain a Ω(1/k 2^{n/2k - 3k/2}) lower bound on the randomized k-party communication complexity of Search(BPHP^{M}_{2ⁿ}) w.r.t. to some natural partition of the variables, where BPHP^{M}_{2ⁿ} is the bit pigeonhole principle and M = 2ⁿ+2^{n(1-1/k)}. In particular, our result implies that the bit pigeonhole requires exponential tree-like Th(k) proofs, where Th(k) is the semantic proof system operating with polynomial inequalities of degree at most k and k = (log^{1-ε} n) for some ε > 0. We also show that BPHP^{2ⁿ+1}_{2ⁿ} superpolynomially separates tree-like Th(log^{1-ε} m) from tree-like Th(log m), where m is the number of variables in the refuted formula
Writing the Time of Troubles, False Dmitry in Russian Literature (Book Review)
No full textThis book discusses the Time of Troubles (Smutnoe vremya) period and the pretenders who appeared after the killing of Ivan the Terrible’s legal heir, Ivan, leaving the Empire without leadership. The power struggle began immediately after the death of Tsar Ivan which brought the Rurikid dynasty to an end; rival boyars created a weak government and autocracy. The book discusses these issues and the representations of Dmitry, the son of Ivan the Terrible within the context of Russian literature. The absence of legitimate royal authority after the demise of the Rurikid dynasty in 1598 caused a dynastic crisis. This period known as the Time of Troubles was characterized by a dynastic struggle that nearly resulted in the shattering of the Muscovite state. It finally came to an end in 1613 with the appearance of the new dynasty, the Romanovs. The book consists of six chapter. In the Introduction the author states that she will examine the “protagonist”, Dmitry, within the context of Russian literature. She examines Dmitry both as a literary figure and a real historical one, and describes Dmitry as a “tabula rasa” because he died under mysterious circumstances with no credible witnesses to confirm how he died. In her book, the author conducts her research both chronologically and diachronically. Chapter I is an introductory chapter that provides information on the eighteenth and nineteenth-century Russian texts Tulupov’s Life of St. Dmitry, The Story of Grishka Otrepev and Tale of Recovery that illustrate the prehistory of Dmitry. The author compares seventeenth century text types and arrives at the conclusion that all three works express a political message and that all of them contain a hagiographical structure and explication. Chapter II examines Russia’s historical experience in the eighteenth century and its literary tradition. In this chapter, the author examines Sumarokov’s tragedy Dmitry the Pretender and Narezhny’s Dmitry the Pretender. The author compares the main causes of his usurpation and its interpretation in literary works of the seventeenth century and the eighteenth century, and concludes that the writers of the seventeenth century crafted quasi-literary, polemical, monological interpretations of the period and determined who was the sole man qualified to rule. Prose treatments of the Dmitry material were the most appropriate way to shape their literature. Eighteenth century writers, on the other hand, recognized a large number of candidates to the throne and their interpretation of the period was multifaceted; tragedy was the most popular literary genres. In Chapter III, the author examines the body of works discussing Dmitry and the Time of Troubles in the 1820s and 1830s: Alexander Pushkin’s Comedy about Tsar Boris and Grishka Otrepev, Faddey Bulgarin’s Dmitry the Pretender, Alexey Khomyakov’s Dmitry the Pretender, Mikhail Pogodin’s Historical Portrait of Dmitry the Pretender. She states that the writers of Russia’s early nineteenth century were fascinated with the Dmitry materials, and each writer depicted him as a man who lived among others and saw him as an alternative to the reigning autocracy. However, they later arrived at the conclusion that there was no viable alternative to the reigning autocracy. Chapter IV deals with two plays written in response to the Era of Great Reforms in 1866: Alexander Ostrovsky’s Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky and Nikolay Chaev’s Dmitry the Pretender. She criticizes both authors’ works on a number of fronts, regarding all of them as being overly ambitious in that they attempt to treat too many unrelated issues, and that the miscellaneous political issues raised in these dramatic works have no clear connection to one another. In the Chapter V, the author states that Dmitry disappears from Russian novels and plays for a century and reappears after the demise of the Soviet Union. She examines Daniil Mordovtsev’s False Dmitry: A Historical Novel of the Time of Troubles, Vasily Avenarius’s In Service to the Tsarevich, Nikolay Alekseev’s The False Tsarevich and Alexey Suvorin’s Tsar Dmitry the Pretender and Tsarevna Xenya. The author concludes that each writer has presented his own interpretation of Dmitry and his era, that these works are clearly independent and any similarities among them are merely coincidental with no pattern to them. Since each writer has selected his own particular assortment of “facts”, the novels each follow their own unique line of development. On a more general note, the author argues that the collection of late nineteenth century works on the Time of Troubles should be interpreted in the context of both their local frame of reference and national pride in the country’s cultural heritage. However, in the Soviet period Dmitry’s disappearance was the result of the Soviets’ emphasis on shaping the nation’s future rather than linking present realities to the national past. In the Conclusion, the author points out that all of the works discussed simultaneously deal with two distinct periods in time – the time in which the works are set and the time in which they were composed. For seventeenth century writers, marking the passing of the old dynasty was important, but the establishment of a new dynasty was just as significant. In the two eighteenth century works that were examined, contemporary political issues were treated in the context of Dmitry’s era. Nineteenth century works more closely resemble seventeenth century works in that the contemporary relevance of the historical events these works deal with is their main focus. According to the author, as long as writers continue to deal with political issues in literature or the theater, the figure of Dmitry will remain a relevant character. This book is very well written source examining the Time of Troubles period, a period when there was no legal heir to run the state, when dynastic struggle began the process of bringing an end to the Rurik Dynasty and leading to a period pretenders. The author provides different interpretations for the “protagonist”, Dmitry, within the context of Russian literature. The author particularly examines different writers’ works in chronological order and discusses the legitimacy of Dmitry by comparing the treatments of the pretenders. This book should be of interest to anyone interested in the period of the Time of Troubles and usurpation and their interpretation in Russian literature
Russia and its 'New Security Architecture' in Europe: A Critical Examination of the Concept. CEPS Working Document No. 310, 5 February 2009
No full textOne of the most important effects of Russia’s war against Georgia in August 2008 was a new set of approaches to the future of European security being actively promoted by Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. According to their interpretation, the Georgian war was not a particular incident (an exception) but a structural event, a landmark comparable to Russia’s own 'September 11' to be symbolised as a 'moment of truth'. This Working Document looks at Russia’s critique of the existing security architecture and its search for a new one
A multi-lepton search for new physics in 35pb⁻¹ proton-proton collisions at the LHC for a center of mass energy of √s = 7 TeV using the CMS detector
No full textThis thesis describes a model independent search for new physics with a decay signature of three or more leptons and missing transverse energy in 35pb⁻¹ of proton-proton collisions at the LHC at a center mass energy √s = 7 TeV using the CMS detector. Standard Model backgrounds are predicted using both simulations and collision data. The observed events are consistent with the Standard Model predictions. The results are interpreted using various supersymmetric models: gravity mediated symmetry breaking, gauge mediated symmetry breaking with slepton co-NLSP, and leptonic R-parity violating.Ph. D.Includes bibliographical referencesby Dmitry Hit
“The Kulikovo Captivity”: The Image of Dmitry Donskoy in National Historical Memory
No full textThis article describes the evolution of the image of Prince Dmitry Donskoy in Russian social thinking and historical consciousness between the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The authors single out sources that played an important role in the formation of this image and Dmitry Donskoy’s place among the other national leaders as reflected in national memory. The analysis is conducted with reference to the most widespread sources forming the national memory of the past (i. e. educational texts, fiction, periodicals, journalistic texts, films, monuments, Internet resources, and special historical studies). The authors also consider some commemoration practices connected both with Grand Prince Dmitry Donskoy and the main event of his life, the Battle of Kulikovo. The article describes the role of political and social bias in the formation of modern society’s perception of the prince and analyses its prospects for further development in mass consciousness. The authors conclude that the way in which the perception of Dmitry Donskoy has developed is dramatic: the prince’s involvement in the battle, which at some point made him the central figure of the pantheon of heroes of the Tsardom of Moscow, turned into the “Kulikovo captivity”, which made it impossible for the image of the prince to be perceived differently. Thus, the image of the prince gradually declined in popularity during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and his canonization was postponed indefinitely. It is noteworthy that it only became possible to canonize Dmitry Donskoy at the end of the Soviet era due to a favourable historical policy meant to give a new perspective on the perception of the prince. The post-Soviet times have seen a new stage in the “resurrection” of the hero; however, the authors argue that there are things that impede it, which are connected with the peculiarities of cultural memory and the way in which Dmitry Donskoy is represented in it.В статье прослежен ход формирования основных представлений о князе Дмитрии Донском в российской общественной мысли и историческом сознании второй половины XIX – начала XX в. Выявлены источники, которые оказали влияние на формирование этого образа и показали место Дмитрия Донского в российской памяти в ряду других национальных лидеров. Привлечены наиболее массовые источники конструирования памяти о прошлом, в которых упоминается имя Дмитрия: учебные тексты, художественная литература, периодическая печать и публицистические произведения, кинофильмы, монументальная скульптура, сетевые ресурсы, специальные исторические исследования. Рассмотрены коммеморативные практики, связанные как с фигурой великого князя Дмитрия Ивановича, так и с главным историческим деянием его жизни – Куликовской битвой. Показан механизм влияния социального и политического заказа на формирование представлений о князе в российском обществе нового и новейшего времени, дан аналитический прогноз относительно перспективы дальнейшего конструирования этого образа в массовом сознании. Делается вывод о том, что судьба образа Дмитрия Ивановича в массовом сознании нового и новейшего времени была драматичной: его связь с Куликовской битвой, некогда сделавшая Дмитрия центральной фигурой пантеона героев Московского царства, стала впоследствии «куликовским пленом», из которого оказалось невозможно выбраться. В XIX – начале ХХ в. популярность князя, востребованность его фигуры в общественном сознании «новой России» неуклонно снижались, а канонизация героя откладывалась. Показательно, что причисление Дмитрия к лику святых стало возможным только на излете советской эпохи, во многом благодаря благоприятной для него исторической политике, направленной на актуализацию образа князя. В постсоветский период начался новый этап «возрождения героя», на пути которого, впрочем, как отмечают авторы, существуют значительные трудности, связанные со спецификой пространства культурной памяти и характером репрезентаций в нем образа Дмитрия Ивановича
- …
