Statistical inference.

In statistics, an inference is drawn from a statistical model, which has been selected via some procedure. Burnham & Anderson, in their much-cited text on model selection, argue that to avoid overfitting, we should adhere to the "Principle of Parsimony". The authors also state the following. Overfitting is more likely to be a serious concern when there is little theory available to guide the analysis, in part because then there tend to be a large number of models to select from. The book "Model Selection and Model Averaging" (2008) puts it this way.

Regression.

In regression analysis, overfitting occurs frequently. As an extreme example, if there are "p" variables in a linear regression with "p" data points, the fitted line can go exactly through every point. For logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards models, there are a variety of rules of thumb (e.g. 5–9, 10 and 10–15 — the guideline of 10 observations per independent variable is known as the "one in ten rule"). In the process of regression model selection, the mean squared error of the random regression function can be split into random noise, approximation bias, and variance in the estimate of the regression function. The bias–variance tradeoff is often used to overcome overfit models.  With a large set of explanatory variables that actually have no relation to the dependent variable being predicted, some variables will in general be falsely found to be statistically significant and the researcher may thus retain them in the model, thereby overfitting the model. This is known as Freedman's paradox.

Machine learning.

Usually a learning algorithm is trained using some set of "training data": exemplary situations for which the desired output is known. The goal is that the algorithm will also perform well on predicting the output when fed "validation data" that was not encountered during its training.  Overfitting is the use of models or procedures that violate Occam's razor, for example by including more adjustable parameters than are ultimately optimal, or by using a more complicated approach than is ultimately optimal. For an example where there are too many adjustable parameters, consider a dataset where training data for can be adequately predicted by a linear function of two independent variables. Such a function requires only three parameters (the intercept and two slopes). Replacing this simple function with a new, more complex quadratic function, or with a new, more complex linear function on more than two independent variables, carries a risk: Occam's razor implies that any given complex function is "a priori" less probable than any given simple function. If the new, more complicated function is selected instead of the simple function, and if there was not a large enough gain in training-data fit to offset the complexity increase, then the new complex function "overfits" the data, and the complex overfitted function will likely perform worse than the simpler function on validation data outside the training dataset, even though the complex function performed as well, or perhaps even better, on the training dataset.  When comparing different types of models, complexity cannot be measured solely by counting how many parameters exist in each model; the expressivity of each parameter must be considered as well. For example, it is nontrivial to directly compare the complexity of a neural net (which can track curvilinear relationships) with parameters to a regression model with parameters.  Overfitting is especially likely in cases where learning was performed too long or where training examples are rare, causing the learner to adjust to very specific random features of the training data that have no causal relation to the target function. In this process of overfitting, the performance on the training examples still increases while the performance on unseen data becomes worse.  As a simple example, consider a database of retail purchases that includes the item bought, the purchaser, and the date and time of purchase. It's easy to construct a model that will fit the training set perfectly by using the date and time of purchase to predict the other attributes, but this model will not generalize at all to new data, because those past times will never occur again.  Generally, a learning algorithm is said to overfit relative to a simpler one if it is more accurate in fitting known data (hindsight) but less accurate in predicting new data (foresight). One can intuitively understand overfitting from the fact that information from all past experience can be divided into two groups: information that is relevant for the future, and irrelevant information ("noise"). Everything else being equal, the more difficult a criterion is to predict (i.e., the higher its uncertainty), the more noise exists in past information that needs to be ignored. The problem is determining which part to ignore. A learning algorithm that can reduce the chance of fitting noise is called "robust."

Consequences.

The most obvious consequence of overfitting is poor performance on the validation dataset. Other negative consequences include:

Remedy.

The optimal function usually needs verification on bigger or completely new datasets. There are, however, methods like minimum spanning tree or life-time of correlation that applies the dependence between correlation coefficients and time-series (window width). Whenever the window width is big enough, the correlation coefficients are stable and don't depend on the window width size anymore. Therefore, a correlation matrix can be created by calculating a coefficient of correlation between investigated variables. This matrix can be represented topologically as a complex network where direct and indirect influences between variables are visualized.

Underfitting.

Underfitting occurs when a statistical model or machine learning algorithm cannot adequately capture the underlying structure of the data. It occurs when the model or algorithm does not fit the data enough. Underfitting occurs if the model or algorithm shows low variance but high bias (to contrast the opposite, overfitting from high variance and low bias). It is often a result of an excessively simple model.  Burnham & Anderson state the following.

In statistics, overfitting is "the production of an analysis that corresponds too closely or exactly to a particular set of data, and may therefore fail to fit additional data or predict future observations reliably". An overfitted model is a statistical model that contains more parameters than can be justified by the data. The essence of overfitting is to have unknowingly extracted some of the residual variation (i.e. the noise) as if that variation represented underlying model structure.

在统计学中,过适(英语:overfitting,或称拟合过度)是指过于紧密或精确地匹配特定资料集,以致于无法良好地拟合其他资料或预测未来的观察结果的现象。过拟合模型指的是相较有限的数据而言,参数过多或者结构过于复杂的统计模型。发生过拟合时,模型的偏差小而方差大。过拟合的本质是训练算法从统计噪声中不自觉获取了信息并表达在了模型结构的参数当中。相较用于训练的资料总量来说,一个模型只要结构足够复杂或参数足够多,就总是可以完美地适应资料的。过适一般可以视为违反奥卡姆剃刀原则。


History.

The Falkland Islands have been claimed and occupied by several nations throughout its history, who generally used their national flags on the islands. It wasn't until 1876 that the islands were given a flag of their own, which consisted of a Blue Ensign defaced with the seal of the islands - an image of HMS "Hebe" (which brought many of the early British settlers to the islands, including Richard Moody, in the 1840s) in Falkland Sound, overlooked by a bullock (representing feral cattle which once roamed the islands). A new coat-of-arms for the islands was introduced on 16 October 1925, consisting of the "Desire" (which was captained by John Davis who is reputed to have discovered the islands in 1592) and a sea lion in a shield surrounded by the motto of the islands, "Desire the Right". This coat-of-arms later replaced the image of the bullock and ship on the flag.  On 29 September 1948, the flag was updated to include the new coat-of-arms (a ram above the "Desire" on shield with the motto below) superimposed upon a white disc. The flag was banned by the Argentine military junta from 2 April – 14 June 1982, during their occupation of the islands, when it was replaced by the flag of Argentina.  In 1999 the size of the arms was increased and the white disc removed to create the current flag. The Falkland Islands Red Ensign was created by The Merchant Shipping (Falkland Islands Colours) Order 1998, No. 3147 of 1998, which came into force in 1999 and which contains a picture of the ensign containing the Falkland arms on a white disc. Red Ensign with the Falklands coat of arms superimposed is used as the islands' civil ensign. Previously the plain red ensign was used by ships in the territorial waters around the Falklands.  The Governor of the Falkland Islands uses a Union Flag defaced with the coat of arms. It was this flag that was raised at Government House in Stanley by the Royal Marines at the end of the Falkland War, signifying the liberation of the islands.

Use of the flag.

Since its approval, the Falklands flag has been used to represent the Falkland Islanders internationally. In 2011, in support of Argentina's claim to the islands, the members of Mercosur banned Falklands flagged vessels from entering their ports. Vessels flying the Falklands Civil Ensign are required to re-flag with the Red Ensign to enter Mercosur ports.  The flag was flown from several HM Government buildings in London, including 10 Downing Street and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Whitehall, on 14 June 2012 to mark the 30th anniversary of the islands' liberation.

Civil ensign.

For the majority of the Falkland Islands existence as a British territory, the appropriate civil ensign was the same as that of the United Kingdom, an undefaced red ensign. The first warrant issued for the use of a defaced red ensign was issued in 1998, to be effective on 25 January 1999. This warrant prescribed the coat of arms of the Falkland Islands within a white disc. However, a revision of territorial flags issued later that year removed the white disc and enlarged the territorial emblems across the board.

The national flag of Fiji (Fijian: "kuila mai Viti") was adopted on 10 October 1970. The state arms have been slightly modified but the flag has remained the same as during Fiji's colonial period. It is a defaced sky-blue "Blue Ensign" (the actual Blue Ensign version of the flag is the Government ensign). It has remained unchanged since Fiji was declared a republic in 1987, despite calls from some politicians for changes.

斐济国旗是斐济共和国的国旗,于1970年10月10日开始使用。


Protocol functions.

Typically RTP will be sent on an even-numbered UDP port, with RTCP messages being sent over the next higher odd-numbered port.  RTCP itself does not provide any flow encryption or authentication methods. Such mechanisms may be implemented, for example, with the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) defined in RFC 3711.  RTCP provides basic functions expected to be implemented in all RTP sessions:  RTCP reports are expected to be sent by all participants, even in a multicast session which may involve thousands of recipients. Such traffic will increase proportionally with the number of participants. Thus, to avoid network congestion, the protocol must include session bandwidth management. This is achieved by dynamically controlling the frequency of report transmissions. RTCP bandwidth usage should generally not exceed 5% of total session bandwidth. Furthermore, 25% of the RTCP bandwidth should be reserved to media sources at all times, so that in large conferences new participants can receive the CNAME identifiers of the senders without excessive delay.  The RTCP reporting interval is randomized to prevent unintended synchronization of reporting. The recommended minimum RTCP report interval per station is 5 seconds. Stations should not transmit RTCP reports more often than once every 5 seconds.

Message types.

RTCP distinguishes several types of packets: "sender report", "receiver report", "source description", and "goodbye". In addition, the protocol is extensible and allows application-specific RTCP packets. A standards-based extension of RTCP is the "extended report" packet type introduced by RFC 3611.

Scalability in large deployments.

In large-scale applications, such as in Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), very long delays (minutes to hours) between RTCP reports may occur, because of the RTCP bandwidth control mechanism required to control congestion (see Protocol functions). Acceptable frequencies are usually less than one per minute. This affords the potential of inappropriate reporting of the relevant statistics by the receiver or cause evaluation by the media sender to be inaccurate relative to the current state of the session. Methods have been introduced to alleviate the problems: RTCP filtering, RTCP biasing and hierarchical aggregation.

Hierarchical aggregation.

The Hierarchical Aggregation (or also known as RTCP feedback hierarchy) is an optimization of the RTCP feedback model and its aim is to shift the maximum number of users limit further together with quality of service (QoS) measurement. The RTCP bandwidth is constant and takes just 5% of session bandwidth. Therefore, the reporting interval about QoS depends, among others, on a number of session members and for very large sessions it can become very high (minutes or even hours). However the acceptable interval is about 10 seconds of reporting. Bigger values would cause time-shifted and very inaccurate reported status about the current session status and any optimization made by sender could even have a negative effect to network or QoS conditions.  The Hierarchical Aggregation is used with Source-Specific Multicast where only a single source is allowed, i.e. IPTV. Another type of multicast could be Any-Source Multicast but it is not so suitable for large-scale applications with huge number of users. , only the most modern IPTV systems use Hierarchical aggregation.

Feedback Target.

Feedback Target is a new type of member that has been firstly introduced by the Internet Draft draft-ietf-avt-rtcpssm-13. The Hierarchical Aggregation method has extended its functionality. The function of this member is to receive Receiver Reports (RR) (see RTCP) and retransmit summarized RR packets, so-called Receiver Summary Information (RSI) to a sender (in case of single level hierarchy).

The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) is a sister protocol of the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). Its basic functionality and packet structure is defined in RFC 3550. RTCP provides out-of-band statistics and control information for an RTP session. It partners with RTP in the delivery and packaging of multimedia data, but does not transport any media data itself.

实时传输控制协议(英语:Real-time Transport Control Protocol或英语:RTP Control Protocol或简写英语:RTCP)是实时传输协议(英语:RTP)的一个姐妹协议。英语:RTCP由RFC 3550定义(取代作废的RFC 1889)。RTP 使用一个 偶数 UDP port ;而RTCP 则使用 RTP 的下一个 port,也就是一个奇数 port。


Education and early life.

He was born in Paris, France, and was home-schooled to the age of 12. By the age of 13, he had adopted adult reading habits and was visiting museums. Later, de Gennes studied at the École Normale Supérieure. After leaving the "École" in 1955, he became a research engineer at the Saclay center of the Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique, working mainly on neutron scattering and magnetism, with advice from A. Abragam and Jacques Friedel. He defended his Ph.D. in 1957 at the University of Paris.

Career and research.

In 1959, he was a postdoctoral research visitor with Charles Kittel at the University of California, Berkeley, and then spent 27 months in the French Navy. In 1961, he was assistant professor in Orsay and soon started the Orsay group on superconductors. In 1968, he switched to studying liquid crystals.  In 1971, he became professor at the Collège de France, and participated in STRASACOL (a joint action of Strasbourg, Saclay and "Collège de France") on polymer physics. From 1980 on, he became interested in interfacial problems: the dynamics of wetting and adhesion.  He worked on granular materials and on the nature of memory objects in the brain.

Awards and honours.

Awarded the Fernand Holweck Medal and Prize in 1968.  He was awarded the Harvey Prize, Lorentz Medal and Wolf Prize in 1988 and 1990. In 1991, he received the Nobel Prize in physics. He was then director of the École Supérieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles de la Ville de Paris (ESPCI), a post he held from 1976 until his retirement in 2002.  P.G. de Gennes has also received the F.A. Cotton Medal for Excellence in Chemical Research of the American Chemical Society in 1997, the Holweck Prize from the joint French and British Physical Society; the Ampere Prize, French Academy of Science; the gold medal from the French CNRS; the Matteuci Medal, Italian Academy; the Harvey Prize, Israel; and polymer awards from both APS and ACS.  He was awarded the above-mentioned Nobel Prize for discovering that "methods developed for studying order phenomena in simple systems can be generalized to more complex forms of matter, in particular to liquid crystals and polymers".  The Royal Society of Chemistry awards the De Gennes Prize biennially, in his honour. He was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS) in 1984. He was awarded A. Cemal Eringen Medal in 1998.

Personal life.

He married Anne-Marie Rouet (born in 1933) in June 1954. They remained married until his death and had three children together: Christian (born 9 December 1954), Dominique (born 6 May 1956) and Marie-Christine (born 11 January 1958).  He also has four children with physicist Françoise Brochard-Wyart (born in 1944) who was one of his former doctoral students and then colleague and co-author. The children are: Claire Wyart (born 16 February 1977), Matthieu Wyart (born 24 May 1978), Olivier Wyart (born 3 August 1984) and Marc de Gennes (born 16 January 1991).  Professors John Goodby and George Gray noted in an obituary: "Pierre was a man of great charm and humour, capable of making others believe they, too, were wise. We will remember him as an inspirational lecturer and teacher, an authority on Shakespeare, an expert skier who attended conference lectures appropriately attired with skis to hand, and, robed in red, at the Bordeaux liquid crystal conference in 1978, took great delight in being inaugurated as a Vignoble de St Émilion."  In 2003 he was one of 22 Nobel Laureates who signed the Humanist Manifesto.  On 22 May 2007, his death was made public as official messages and tributes poured in.  On nuclear fusion he was quoted as saying, "We say that we will put the Sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box."

Pierre-Gilles de Gennes (; 24 October 1932 – 18 May 2007) was a French physicist and the Nobel Prize laureate in physics in 1991.

皮埃尔-吉勒·德热纳(,1932年-10月24日-2007年-5月18日),法国物理学家,1991年获诺贝尔物理学奖。2007年5月18日于奥赛逝世。


History.

In Anglo-Saxon times, consultation between the City's rulers and its citizens took place at the Folkmoot. Administration and judicial processes were conducted at the Court of Husting and the non-legal part of the court's work evolved into the Court of Aldermen.  There is no surviving record of a charter first establishing the Corporation as a legal body, but the City is regarded as incorporated by prescription, meaning that the law presumes it to have been incorporated because it has for so long been regarded as such (e.g. Magna Carta states that "the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties"). The City of London Corporation has been granted various special privileges since the Norman Conquest, and the Corporation's first recorded Royal Charter dates from around 1067, when William the Conqueror granted the citizens of London a charter confirming the rights and privileges that they had enjoyed since the time of Edward the Confessor. Numerous subsequent Royal Charters over the centuries confirmed and extended the citizens' rights.  Around 1189, the City gained the right to have its own mayor, later being advanced to the degree and style of Lord Mayor of London. Over time, the Court of Aldermen sought increasing help from the City's commoners and this was eventually recognised with commoners being represented by the Court of Common Council, known by that name since at least as far back as 1376. The earliest records of the business habits of the City's Chamberlains and Common Clerks, and the proceedings of the Courts of Common Council and Aldermen, begin in 1275, and are recorded in fifty volumes known as the Letter-Books of the City of London.  The City of London Corporation had its privileges stripped by a writ "quo warranto" under Charles II in 1683, but they were later restored and confirmed by Act of Parliament under William III and Mary II in 1690, after the Glorious Revolution.  With growing demands on the Corporation and a corresponding need to raise local taxes from the commoners, the Common Council grew in importance and has been the principal governing body of the City of London since the 18th century.  In January 1898, the Common Council gained the full right to collect local rates when the City of London Sewers Act 1897 transferred the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London to the Corporation. A separate Commission of Sewers was created for the City of London after the Great Fire in 1666, and as well as the construction of drains it had responsibility for the prevention of flooding; paving, cleaning and lighting the City of London's streets; and churchyards and burials. The individual commissioners were previously nominated by the Corporation, but it was a separate body. The Corporation had earlier limited rating powers in relation to raising funds for the City of London Police, as well as the militia rate and some rates in relation to the general requirements of the Corporation.  The Corporation is unique among British local authorities for its continuous legal existence over many centuries, and for having the power to alter its own constitution, which is done by an Act of Common Council.

Local authority role.

Local government legislation often makes special provision for the City to be treated as a London borough and for the Common Council to act as a local authority. The Corporation does not have general authority over the Middle Temple and the Inner Temple, two of the Inns of Court adjoining the west of the City which are historic extra-parochial areas, but many statutory functions of the Corporation are extended into these two areas.  The Chief Executive of the administrative side of the Corporation holds the ancient office of Town Clerk of London.

The High Officers and other officials.

Because of its accumulated wealth and responsibilities the Corporation has a number of officers and officials unique to its structure who enjoy more autonomy than most local council officials, and each of whom has a separate budget: There are others:

Elections.

The City of London Corporation was not reformed by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, because it had a more extensive electoral franchise than any other borough or city; in fact, it widened this further with its own equivalent legislation allowing one to become a freeman without being a liveryman. In 1801, the City had a population of about 130,000, but increasing development of the City as a central business district led to this falling to below 5,000 after the Second World War. It has risen slightly to around 9,000 since, largely due to the development of the Barbican Estate. As it has not been affected by other municipal legislation over the period of time since then, its electoral practice has become increasingly anomalous.  Therefore, the non-residential vote (or business vote), abolished in the rest of the country in 1969, became an increasingly large part of the electorate. The non-residential vote system used disfavoured incorporated companies. The City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002 greatly increased the business franchise, allowing many more businesses to be represented. In 2009, the business vote was about 24,000, greatly exceeding residential voters.

Voters.

Eligible voters must be at least 18 years old and a citizen of the United Kingdom, a European Union country, or a Commonwealth country, and either:  Each body or organisation, whether unincorporated or incorporated, whose premises are within the City of London may appoint a number of voters based on the number of workers it employs. Limited liability partnerships fall into this category.  Bodies employing fewer than ten workers may appoint one voter, those employing ten to fifty workers may appoint one voter for every five; those employing more than fifty workers may appoint ten voters and one additional voter for every fifty workers beyond the first fifty.  Though workers count as part of a workforce regardless of nationality, only certain individuals may be appointed as voters. Under section 5 of the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002, the following are eligible to be appointed as voters (the qualifying date is 1 September of the year of the election):  Voters appointed by businesses who are also entitled to vote in a local authority district other than the City, due to their residence in that district, maintain the right to vote in their 'home' district.

Wards.

The City of London is divided into twenty-five Wards, each of which is an electoral division, electing one Alderman and a number of Councilmen based on the size of the electorate. The numbers below reflect the changes caused by the "City of London (Ward Elections) Act" and a recent Ward Boundary Review.

Livery companies.

There are over one hundred "livery companies" in London. The companies originated as guilds or trade associations. The senior members of the livery companies, known as liverymen, form a special electorate known as Common Hall. Common Hall is the body that chooses the Lord Mayor of the City, the Sheriffs and certain other City Officers.

Court of Aldermen.

Wards originally elected aldermen for life, but the term is now only six years. Aldermen may, if they so choose, submit to an election before the six-year period ends. In any case, an election must be held no later than six years after the previous election. The sole qualification for the office is that aldermen must be "Freemen of the City".  Aldermen are "ex officio" Justices of the Peace (JP). All aldermen also serve on the Court of Common Council.

Court of Common Council.

The Court of Common Council, also known as the Common Council of the City of London, is formally referred to as the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled. The "Court" is the primary decision-making body of the City of London Corporation and meets nine times per year, though most of its work is carried out by committees.  The Common Council is the police authority for the City of London, a police area that covers the City including the Inner Temple & Middle Temple and which has its own police force – the City of London Police – separate from the Metropolitan Police, which polices the remainder of Greater London.  Each ward may choose a number of Common Councilmen. A Common Councilman must be a registered voter in a City Ward, own a freehold or lease land in the City, or reside in the City for the year prior to the election. The individual must also be over 21; a Freeman of the City; and a British, Irish, Commonwealth or EU citizen. Common Council elections are held every four years, most recently in March 2017. Common Councilmen may use the postnominals CC after their names.  Each year, the Common Councilmen elect one of their number to serve as Chief Commoner, an honorific office which'serves to recognise the distinguished contribution the office holder is likely to have made to the City Corporation over a period of years.' The Chief Commoner is expected to champion the Court of Common Council, to work to uphold its rights and privileges, and to offer advice and counsel to its members. S/he also represents the Court on various different committees, supports the Lord Mayor in the business of the Corporation and is prominently present on ceremonial occasions. The Chief Commoner is elected in October of each year and holds office for one year from the following April.  Following a by-election in the Ward of Portsoken on 20 March 2014 the political composition of the Court of Common Council was 99 Independent members and one Labour Party member. Since City of London Council elections in March 2017, the council has been composed of 95 independents and five Labour Party members. In October 2018, the Labour Party gained its sixth seat on the Common Council with a by-election victory in Castle Baynard ward.

Committees of the City of London.

The work of the City of London Corporation is primarily carried out through a range of committees:

The Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs.

The Lord Mayor of London and the two Sheriffs are chosen by liverymen meeting at Common Hall. Sheriffs, who serve as assistants to the Lord Mayor, are chosen on Midsummer Day. The Lord Mayor, who must have previously been a Sheriff, is chosen on Michaelmas. Both the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs are chosen for terms of one year.  The Lord Mayor fulfills several roles:  The ancient and continuing office of Lord Mayor of London (with responsibility for the City of London) should not be confused with the office of Mayor of London (responsible for the whole of Greater London and created in 2000).

Ceremonies and traditions.

Stuart Fraser, the Corporation's Deputy Policy chairman wrote in 2011 "it is undoubtedly the case that we have more tradition and pageantry than most", for example the yearly Lord Mayor's Show.  There are eight formal ceremonies involving the Corporation:  Tax journalist Nicholas Shaxson said, "Whenever The Queen makes a State entry to the City, she meets a red cord raised by City police at Temple Bar, and then engages in a colourful ceremony involving the Lord Mayor, his Sword, assorted Aldermen and Sheriffs, and a character called the Remembrancer. In this ceremony, the Lord Mayor recognises The Queen's authority, but the relationship is complex: as the corporation itself says: "The right of the City to run its own affairs was gradually won as concessions were gained from the Crown.""

Conservation areas and green spaces.

The City of London Corporation maintains around of public green spaces – mainly conservation areas / nature reserves – in Greater London and the surrounding counties. The most well-known of the conservation areas are Hampstead Heath and Epping Forest. Other areas include Ashtead Common, Burnham Beeches, Highgate Wood and the City Commons (seven commons in south London).  The Corporation also runs the unheated Parliament Hill Lido, in Hampstead Heath which the London Residuary Body with the agreement of the London Boroughs gave into the safekeeping of the City, for the benefit of the public, in 1989.  The City also owns and manages two traditional inner city parks: Queen's Park and West Ham Park as well as over 150 smaller public green spaces. All these green spaces are funded principally by the City of London.

Education.

The City of London has only one directly-maintained primary school, the Sir John Cass's Foundation Primary School (ages 4 to 11), which is also the only voluntary-aided Church of England primary school in the City of London. The school is maintained by the Education Service of the City of London.  City of London residents may send their children to schools in neighbouring local education authorities (LEAs). Some secondary school children enrol in schools in Islington, Tower Hamlets, Westminster or Southwark. Children who are permanent residents of the City of London are eligible for transfer to the City of London Academy, Southwark, a state-funded secondary school sponsored by the City of London located in Bermondsey. The City of London Corporation also sponsors City Academy, Hackney and City of London Academy Islington.  The City of London controls three other independent schools – the City of London School (for boys), the City of London School for Girls, and the co-educational City of London Freemen's School. The Lord Mayor also holds the posts of Rector of City University and President of Gresham College, an educational institution for advanced study.  The Guildhall School of Music and Drama is owned and funded by the Corporation.

Criticism.

Writing in "The Guardian", George Monbiot claimed that the corporation's power "helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK's dependent tax havens" and suggested that its privileges could not withstand proper "public scrutiny".  In December 2012, following criticism that it was insufficiently transparent about its finances, the City of London Corporation revealed that its "City's Cash" account – an endowment fund built up over the past 800 years that it says is used "for the benefit of London as a whole" – holds more than £1.3bn., it had net assets of £2.3bn. The fund collects money made from the corporation's property and investment earnings.

The City of London Corporation, officially and legally the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, is the municipal governing body of the City of London, the historic centre of London and the location of much of the United Kingdom's financial sector.

伦敦市法团(英语:City of London Corporation),亦称伦敦法团,是英国伦敦的老城区——伦敦市的自治组织和地方政府。其辖区只涵盖伦敦市(也叫作“伦敦金融城”或“平方英里”——伦敦城的面积大约是一平方英里),而不是整个大伦敦。


History.

Every version of Microsoft Windows from Windows XP onward includes an installed Remote Desktop Connection (RDC) ("Terminal Services") client (mstsc.exe) whose version is determined by that of the operating system or by the last applied Windows Service Pack. The Terminal Services server is supported as an official feature on Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition, Windows 2000 Server, all editions of Windows XP except Windows XP Home Edition, Windows Server 2003, Windows Home Server, on Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, in Windows Vista Ultimate, Enterprise and Business editions, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 and on Windows 7 Professional and above.  Microsoft provides the client required for connecting to newer RDP versions for downlevel operating systems. Since the server improvements are not available downlevel, the features introduced with each newer RDP version only work on downlevel operating systems when connecting "to" a higher version RDP server from these older operating systems, and not when using the RDP server in the older operating system.

Version 4.0.

Based on the ITU-T T.128 application sharing protocol (during draft also known as "T.share") from the T.120 recommendation series, the first version of RDP (named version 4.0) was introduced by Microsoft with "Terminal Services", as a part of their product Windows NT 4.0 Server, Terminal Server Edition. The Terminal Services Edition of NT 4.0 relied on Citrix's MultiWin technology, previously provided as a part of Citrix WinFrame atop Windows NT 3.51, in order to support multiple users and login sessions simultaneously. Microsoft required Citrix to license their MultiWin technology to Microsoft in order to be allowed to continue offering their own terminal-services product, then named Citrix MetaFrame, atop Windows NT 4.0. The Citrix-provided DLLs included in Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Services Edition still carry a Citrix copyright rather than a Microsoft copyright. Later versions of Windows integrated the necessary support directly. The T.128 application sharing technology was acquired by Microsoft from UK software developer Data Connection Limited.

Version 5.0.

This version was introduced with Windows 2000 Server, added support for a number of features, including printing to local printers, and aimed to improve network bandwidth usage.

Version 5.1.

This version was introduced with Windows XP Professional and included support for 24-bit color and sound. The client is available for Windows 2000, Windows 9x, Windows NT 4.0. With this version, the name of the client was changed from "Terminal Services Client" to "Remote Desktop Connection"; the heritage remains to this day, however, as the underlying executable is still named "mstsc.exe".

Version 5.2.

This version was introduced with Windows Server 2003, included support for console mode connections, a session directory, and local resource mapping. It also introduces Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.0 for server authentication, and to encrypt terminal server communications. This version is built into Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 x64 & x86 Editions.

Version 6.0.

This version was introduced with Windows Vista and incorporated support for Windows Presentation Foundation applications, Network Level Authentication, multi-monitor spanning and large desktop support, and TLS 1.0 connections. Version 6.0 client is available for Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1/SP2 (x86 and x64 editions) and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection Client for Macintosh OS X is also available with support for Intel and PowerPC Mac OS versions 10.4.9 and greater.  Server 2012 can support RDC 6.0 or later.

Version 6.1.

This version was released in February 2008 and is included with Windows Server 2008, as well as with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. The client is included with Windows XP SP3. In addition to changes related to how a remote administrator connects to the "console", this version has new functionality introduced in Windows Server 2008, such as connecting remotely to individual programs and a new client-side printer redirection system that makes the client's print capabilities available to applications running on the server, without having to install print drivers on the server.

Version 7.0.

This version was released to manufacturing in July 2009 and is included with Windows Server 2008 R2, as well as with Windows 7. With this release, also changed from "Terminal Services" to "Remote Desktop Services". This version has new functions such as Windows Media Player redirection, bidirectional audio, multi-monitor support, Aero glass support, enhanced bitmap acceleration, Easy Print redirection, Language Bar docking. The RDP 7.0 client is available on Windows XP SP3 and Windows Vista SP1/SP2 through KB969084. The RDP 7.0 client is not officially supported on Windows Server 2003 x86 and Windows Server 2003 / Windows XP Professional x64 editions.  Most RDP 7.0 features like Aero glass remote use, bidirectional audio, Windows Media Player redirection, multiple monitor support and Remote Desktop Easy Print are only available in Windows 7 Enterprise or Ultimate editions.

Version 7.1.

Release 7.1 of RDP was included with Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 in 2010. It introduced RemoteFX, which provides virtualized GPU support and host-side encoding.

Version 8.0.

This version was released in Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012. This version has new functions such as Adaptive Graphics (progressive rendering and related techniques), automatic selection of TCP or UDP as transport protocol, multi touch support, DirectX 11 support for vGPU, USB redirection supported independently of vGPU support, etc. A "connection quality" button is displayed in the RDP client connection bar for RDP 8.0 connections; clicking on it provides further information about connection, including whether UDP is in use or not.  The RDP 8.0 client and server components are also available as an add-on for Windows 7 SP1. The RDP 8.0 client is also available for Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1, but the server components are not. The add-on requires the DTLS protocol to be installed as prerequisite. After installing the updates, for the RDP 8.0 protocol to be enabled between Windows 7 machines, an extra configuration step is needed using the Group Policy editor.  A new feature in RDP 8.0 is limited support for RDP session nesting; it only works for Windows 8 and Server 2012 though, Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 (even with the RDP 8.0 update) do not support this feature.  The "shadow" feature from RDP 7, which allowed an administrator to monitor (snoop) on a RDP connection has been removed in RDP 8. The Aero Glass remoting feature (applicable to Windows 7 machines connecting to each other) has also been removed in RDP 8.

Version 8.1.

This version was released with Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2. A RDP 8.1 client update exists for Windows 7 SP1 as well, but unlike the RDP 8.0 update for Windows 7, it does not add a RDP 8.1 server component to Windows 7. Furthermore, if RDP 8.0 server function is desired on Windows 7, the KB 2592687 (RDP 8.0 client and server components) update must be installed before installing the RDP 8.1 update.  Support for session shadowing was added back in RDP version 8.1. This version also fixes some visual glitches with Microsoft Office 2013 when running as a RemoteApp.  Version 8.1 of the RDP also enables a "restricted admin" mode. Logging into this mode only requires knowledge of the hashed password, rather than of its plaintext, therefore making a pass the hash attack possible. Microsoft has released an 82-page document explaining how to mitigate this type of attack.

Version 10.0.

Version 10.0 of the RDP includes the following new features: AutoSize zoom (useful for HiDPI clients). In addition graphics compression improvements were included utilizing H.264/AVC.

Features.

Microsoft introduced the following features with the release of RDP 6.0 in 2006:  Release 7.1 of RDP in 2010 introduced the following feature:

Security issues.

Version 5.2 of the RDP in its default configuration is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. Administrators can enable transport layer encryption to mitigate this risk.  RDP sessions are also susceptible to in-memory credential harvesting, which can be used to launch pass the hash attacks.  In March 2012, Microsoft released an update for a critical security vulnerability in the RDP. The vulnerability allowed a Windows computer to be compromised by unauthenticated clients and computer worms.  RDP client version 6.1 can be used to reveal the names and pictures of all users on the RDP Server (no matter which Windows version) in order to pick one, if no username is specified for the RDP connection.  In March 2018 Microsoft released a patch for, a remote code execution vulnerability in CredSSP, which is a Security Support Provider involved in the Microsoft Remote Desktop and Windows Remote Management, discovered by Preempt.  In May 2019 Microsoft issued a security patch for ("BlueKeep"), a vulnerability which allows for the possibility of remote code execution and which Microsoft warned was "wormable", with the potential to cause widespread disruption. Unusually, patches were also made available for several versions of Windows that had reached their end-of-life, such as Windows XP. No immediate malicious exploitation followed, but experts were unanimous that this was likely, and could cause widespread harm based on the number of systems that appeared to have remained exposed and unpatched.  In July 2019, Microsoft issued a security patch for, a RDP vulnerability that affects Hyper-V.

Non-Microsoft implementations.

There are numerous non-Microsoft implementations of RDP clients and servers that implement subsets of the Microsoft functionality. For instance, the open-source command-line client rdesktop is available for Linux/Unix and Microsoft Windows operating systems. There are many GUI clients, like tsclient and KRDC, that are built on top of rdesktop; CoRD is such a client for the Macintosh.  In 2009, rdesktop was forked as FreeRDP, a new project aiming at modularizing the code, addressing various issues, and implementing new features. FreeRDP comes with its own command-line-client xfreerdp, which supports Seamless Windows in RDP6. Around 2011, the project decided to abandon forking and instead rewrite under Apache License, adding more features like RemoteFX, RemoteApp, and NTLMv2. A commercial distribution called Thincast was started in 2019. There's also a GTK-Application named Remmina.  Open-source RDP servers on Unix include FreeRDP and xrdp. The Windows Remote Desktop Connection client can be used to connect to such a server.  Proprietary RDP client solutions such as rdpclient are available as a stand-alone application or embedded with client hardware. A new access paradigm, browser-based access, has enabled users to access Windows desktops and applications on any RDP hosts, such as Microsoft Remote Desktop (RDS) Session Hosts (Terminal Services) and virtual desktops, as well as remote physical PCs.  There is also a VirtualBox Remote Display Protocol (VRDP) used in the VirtualBox virtual machine implementation by Oracle. This protocol is compatible with all RDP clients, such as that provided with Windows but, unlike the original RDP, can be configured to accept unencrypted and password unprotected connections, which may be useful in secure and trusted networks, such as home or office LANs. By default, Microsoft's RDP server refuses connections to user accounts with empty passwords (but this can be changed with the Group Policy Editor). External and guest authorization options are provided by VRDP as well. It does not matter which operating system is installed as a guest because VRDP is implemented on the virtual machine (host) level, not in the guest system. The proprietary VirtualBox Extension Pack is required.

Patents.

Microsoft requires third-party implementations to license the relevant RDP patents., the extent to which open-source clients meet this requirement remains unknown.

Use in cybercrime.

Security researchers have reported that cybercriminals are selling compromised RDP servers on underground forums as well as specialized illicit RDP shops. These compromised RDPs may be used as a "staging ground" for conducting other types of fraud or to access sensitive personal or corporate data. Researchers further report instances of cybercriminals using RDPs to directly drop malware on computers.

Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) is a proprietary protocol developed by Microsoft which provides a user with a graphical interface to connect to another computer over a network connection. The user employs RDP client software for this purpose, while the other computer must run RDP server software.

-{zh-cn:远程桌面协议; zh-tw:远端桌面协定;}-(英语:Remote Desktop Protocol,缩写:英语:RDP)是一个多通道(multi-channel)的协定,让使用者(用户端或称「本地电脑」)连上提供微软终端机服务的电脑(服务器端或称「远端电脑」)。大部分的Windows都有用户端软件。其他操作系统例如Linux、FreeBSD、Mac OS X,也有对应的用户端软件。伺服端电脑方面,则-{zh-cn:监听; zh-tw:听取;}-送到TCP 3389埠的资料。


Design and development.

The origins of the Yak-3 went back to 1941 when the I-30 prototype was offered along with the I-26 (Yak-1) as an alternative design. The I-30, powered by a Klimov M-105P engine, was of all-metal construction, using a wing with dihedral on the outer panels. Like the early Yak-1, it had a 20 mm ShVAK cannon firing through the hollow-driveshaft nose spinner as a "motornaya pushka", twin 7.62 mm synchronized ShKAS machine guns in cowling mounts and a ShVAK cannon in each wing. The first of two prototypes had a slatted wing to improve handling and short-field performance while the second prototype had a wooden wing without slats in order to simplify production and save aluminium. The second prototype crashed during flight tests and was written off. Although there were plans to put the Yak-3 into production, the scarcity of aviation aluminium and the pressure of the Nazi invasion led to work on the first Yak-3 being abandoned in late 1941.  In 1943, Yakovlev designed the Yak-1M which was a lighter version of the Yak-1. It incorporated a wing of similar design, but with smaller surface area and had further aerodynamic refinements, like the new placement of the oil radiator, from the chin to the wing roots (one of the visual differences with the Yak-1, -7, -9). A second Yak-1M prototype was constructed later that year, differing from the first aircraft in that it had plywood instead of fabric covering of the rear fuselage, mastless radio antenna, reflector gunsight and improved armour and engine cooling. The chief test pilot for the project Petr Mikhailovich Stefanovskiy was so impressed with the new aircraft that he recommended that it should completely replace the Yak-1 and Yak-7 with only the Yak-9 retained in production for further work with the Klimov VK-107 engine. The new fighter designated the Yak-3 entered service in 1944, later than the Yak-9 despite the lower designation number and by mid-1946, 4,848 had been built.  The designation Yak-3 was also used for other Yakovlev projects – a proposed but never built, heavy twin-engine fighter and the Yakovlev Yak-7A.  The first 197 Yak-3 were lightly armed with a single "motornaya pushka"-mount 20 mm ShVAK cannon and one 12.7 mm UBS synchronized machine gun, with subsequent aircraft receiving a second UBS for a weight of fire of 2.72 kg (6.0 lb) per second using high-explosive ammunition. All armament was installed close to the axis of the aircraft with a cannon mounted in the engine "vee" firing through the propellor boss, synchronised machine guns in the fuselage, helping accuracy and leaving wings unloaded.

Operational history.

Lighter and smaller than Yak-9 but powered by the same engine, the Yak-3 was a forgiving, easy-to-handle aircraft loved by both novice and experienced pilots. It was robust, easy to maintain and a highly successful dog-fighter. It was used mostly as a tactical fighter, flying low over battlefields and engaging in dogfights below 4000 m (13,000 ft).  The new aircraft began to reach frontline units during summer 1944. Yak-3 service tests were conducted by 91st IAP of the 2nd Air Army, commanded by Lt Colonel Kovalyov, in June–July 1944. The regiment had the task of gaining air superiority. During 431 sorties, 20 "Luftwaffe" fighters and three Junkers Ju 87s were shot down while Soviet losses amounted to two Yak-3s shot down. A large dogfight developed on 16 June 1944, when 18 Yak-3s clashed with 24 German aircraft. Soviet Yak-3 fighters shot down 15 German aircraft for the loss of one Yak destroyed and one damaged. The following day, "Luftwaffe" activity over that section of the front had virtually ceased. On 17 July 1944, eight Yaks attacked a formation of 60 German aircraft, including escorting fighters. In the ensuing dogfight, the Luftwaffe lost three Ju 87s and four Bf 109Gs, for no loss. The "Luftwaffe" issued an order to "avoid combat below five thousand metres with Yakovlev fighters lacking an oil cooler intake beneath the nose!" "Luftwaffe" fighters in combat with the Yak-3 tried to use surprise tactics, attacking from above.  Unresolved wartime problems with the Yak-3 included plywood surfaces delaminating when the aircraft pulled out of a high-speed dive, short-range and poor engine reliability. The pneumatic system for actuating landing gear, flaps and brakes, typical for all Yakovlev fighters of the time, was troublesome. Though less reliable than hydraulic or electrical alternatives, the pneumatic system was preferred owing to the weight saving.  In 1944, the Normandie-Niemen Group re-equipped with the Yak-3, scoring the last 99 of their 273 air victories against the "Luftwaffe".  Total Yak-3 losses in combat were 210 (60 in 1944 and 150 in 1945).

Modern production Yak fighters.

From 1991 to 2002 there were 21 Yakovlev Yak-3, Yak-7 and Yak-9 aircraft produced in the former Soviet Union using the original plans and dies. These aircraft are powered by the American Allison V-1710 or the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engine in place of the Klimov V-12s used during the war. Several of these aircraft are airworthy, mostly based in the United States with others in Germany and Australia. Others have been converted to "Yak-3U" status from original Yak-11 trainers for private owners and museums.  Flying a modified modern production Yak-3UPW powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-2000 engine, William Whiteside set an official international speed record for piston-engined aircraft in the under-3,000 kg (6,615-pound) category on 10 October 2011, reaching over a 3-km (1.863-mile) course at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah in the United States, greatly exceeding the previous record of set in 2002 by Jim Wright. The following day, Whiteside used the same aircraft to set an unofficial speed record for aircraft in the category of over the same 3-km (1.863-mile) course.

The Yakovlev Yak-3 (Russian: Яковлев Як-3) was a single-engine, single-seat World War II Soviet fighter. Robust and easy to maintain, it was much liked by both pilots and ground crew. One of the smallest and lightest combat fighters fielded by any combatant during the war, its high power-to-weight ratio gave it excellent performance and it proved to be a formidable dogfighter.

雅克-3型是苏联在二战后期空优性能最高的战斗机,亦常被认为是整个二战中最灵活和敏捷的战斗机,还是被改造成苏联第一种量产的喷射战斗机雅克-15(Yak-15)的母体。


纳瓦尔·埃尔·穆塔瓦基尔

Life.

Although she had been a quite accomplished runner, the victory of El Moutawakel, who studied at Iowa State University at the time, was a surprise. King Hassan II of Morocco telephoned El Moutawakel to give his congratulations, and he declared that all girls born the day of her victory were to be named in her honor. Her medal also meant the breakthrough for sporting women in Morocco and other mostly Muslim countries.  She was a pioneer for Muslim and Arabic athletes in that she confounded long-held beliefs that women of such backgrounds could not succeed in athletics.  In 1993 she started running for fun, a 5 km run for women in Casablanca that has since become the biggest women's race held in a Muslim country, with up to 30,000 who came to run.  In 1995, El Moutawakel became a council member of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), and in 1998 she became a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).  El Moutawakel is a member of the International Olympic Committee, and she was the president of the evaluation commissions for the selection of the host city for the Summer Olympics of 2012 and 2016. Since 2012 she is a Vice-President of the IOC.  In 2006, El Moutawakel was one of the eight honored to bear the Olympic flag at the 2006 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony in Turin, Italy. On 26 July 2012, she carried the London Olympics torch through Westminster.  El Moutawakel was one of the ambassadors of the Morocco bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

International competitions.

Representing Africa

Nawal El Moutawakel (Amazigh: Nawal Lmutawakkil; ; born on April 15, 1962 in Casablanca) is a Moroccan former hurdler, who won the inaugural women's 400 metres hurdles event at the 1984 Summer Olympics, and was the inaugural female, Muslim, born in Africa, Moroccan to become an Olympic medalist (gold). In 2007, El Moutawakel was named the Minister of Sports in the upcoming cabinet of Morocco.

纳瓦尔·埃尔·穆塔瓦基尔(,1962年-4月15日),摩洛哥著名田径运动员,第一位来自穆斯林国家和非洲的奥运会女子项目金牌得主。


Meaning.

The word "polysynthesis" is composed of the Greek roots "poly" meaning "many" and "synthesis" meaning "placing together".  In linguistics a word is defined as a unit of meaning that can stand alone in a sentence, and which can be uttered in isolation. Words may be simple, consisting of a single unit of meaning, or they can be complex, formed by combining many small units of meaning, called morphemes. In a general non-theoretical sense polysynthetic languages are those languages that have a high degree of morphological synthesis, and which tend to form long complex words containing long strings of morphemes, including derivational and inflectional morphemes. A language then is "synthetic" or "synthesizing" if it tends to have more than one morpheme per word, and a polysynthetic language is a language that has "many" morphemes per word. The concept was originally used only to describe those languages that can form long words that correspond to an entire sentence in English or other Indo-European languages, and the word is still most frequently used to refer to such "sentence words".  Often polysynthesis is achieved when languages have extensive agreement between elements verbs and their arguments so that the verb is marked for agreement with the grammatical subject and object. In this way a single word can encode information about all the elements in a transitive clause. In Indo-European languages the verb is usually only marked for agreement with the subject (e.g. Spanish'"I speak" where the -o ending marks agreement with the first person singular subject), but in many languages verbs also agree with the object (e.g. the Kiswahili word'"I love you" where the'prefix marks agreement with the first person singular subject and the'prefix marks agreement with a second person singular object).  Many polysynthetic languages combine these two strategies, and also have ways of inflecting verbs for concepts normally encoded by adverbs or adjectives in Indo-European languages. In this way highly complex words can be formed, for example the Yupik word'which means "He had not yet said again that he was going to hunt reindeer." The word consists of the morphemes'with the meanings, reindeer-hunt-future-say-negation-again-third.person.singular.indicative, and except for the morpheme "" "reindeer", none of the other morphemes can appear in isolation.  Another way to achieve a high degree of synthesis is when languages can form compound words by incorporation of nouns, so that entire words can be incorporated into the verb word, as "baby" is incorporated in the English verb "babysit".  Another common feature of polysynthetic languages is a tendency to use head marking as a means of syntactic cohesion. This means that many polysynthetic languages mark grammatical relations between verbs and their constituents by indexing the constituents on the verb with agreement morphemes, and the relation between noun phrases and their constituents by marking the head noun with agreement morphemes. There are some dependent-marking languages that may be considered to be polysynthetic because they use case stacking to achieve similar effects, and very long words.

Examples.

An example from Chukchi, a polysynthetic, incorporating, and agglutinating language of Russia which also has grammatical cases unlike the majority of incorporating polysynthetic languages:  From Classical Ainu of Japan, another polysynthetic, incorporating, and agglutinating language:  The Mexican language Nahuatl is also considered to be polysynthetic, incorporating and agglutinating. The following verb shows how the verb is marked for subject, patient, object, and indirect object:  The Australian language Tiwi is also considered highly polysynthetic:  And the Canadian First Nation language Mohawk:  An example from Western Greenlandic, an exclusively suffixing polysynthetic language:

History of the concept.

Peter Stephen Du Ponceau on Native American languages.

The term "polysynthesis" was first used by Peter Stephen DuPonceau (a.k.a. Pierre Étienne Du Ponceau) in 1819 as a term to describe the structural characteristics of American languages:  The term was made popular in a posthumously published work by Wilhelm von Humboldt (1836), and it was long considered that all the indigenous languages of the Americas were of the same type. Humboldt considered language structure to be an expression of the psychological stage of evolution of a people, and since Native Americans were considered uncivilized, polysynthesis came to be seen as the lowest stage of grammatical evolution, characterized by a lack of rigorous rules and clear organization known in European languages. Duponceau himself had argued that the complex polysynthetic nature of American languages was a relic of a more civilized past, and that this suggested that the Indians of his time had degenerated from a previous advanced stage. Duponceau's colleague Albert Gallatin contradicted this theory, arguing rather that synthesis was a sign of a lower cultural level, and that while the Greek and Latin languages were somewhat synthetic, Native American languages were much more so – and consequently polysynthesis was the hallmark of the lowest level of intellectual evolution.  This view was still prevalent when linguist William Dwight Whitney wrote in 1875. He considered polysynthesis to be a general characteristic of American languages, but he did qualify the statement by mentioning that certain languages such as Otomi and the Tupi-Guarani languages had been claimed to be basically analytic.

D. G. Brinton.

The ethnologist Daniel Garrison Brinton, the first professor of anthropology in the US, followed Duponceau, Gallatin and Humboldt in seeing polysynthesis, which he distinguished from incorporation, as a defining feature of all the languages of the Americas. He defined polysynthesis in this way:  In the 1890s the question of whether polysynthesis could be considered a general characteristic of Native American languages became a hotly contested issue as Brinton debated the question with John Hewitt. Brinton, who had never done fieldwork with any indigenous group continued to defend Humboldt and Duponceau's view of the exceptional nature of American languages against the claim of Hewitt, who was half Tuscarora and had studied the Iroquoian languages, that languages such as the Iroquois had grammatical rules and verbs just like European languages.

Edward Sapir's morphological types.

Edward Sapir reacted to the prevailing view in Americanist linguistics which considered the languages of the Americas to belong to a single basic polysynthetic type, arguing instead that American indigenous languages were highly diverse and encompassed all known morphological types. He also built on the work of Leonard Bloomfield who in his 1914 work "language" dismissed morphological typology, stating specifically that the term polysynthetic had never been clearly defined.  In Sapir's 1921 book also titled "Language", he argued that instead of using the morphological types as a strict classification scheme it made more sense to classify languages as relatively more or less synthetic or analytic, with the isolating and polysynthetic languages in each of the extremes of that spectrum. He also argued that languages were rarely purely of one morphological type, but used different morphological strategies in different parts of the grammar.  Sapir introduced a number of other distinctions according to which languages could be morphologically classified, and proposed combining them to form more complex classifications. He proposed classifying languages both by the degree of synthesis, classifying languages as either analytic, synthetic or polysynthetic, and by the technique used to achieve synthesis, classifying languages as agglutinative, fusional, or symbolic. Among the examples of polysynthetic languages he gave was Haida which he considered to use the agglutinative-isolating technique, Yana and Nootka both of which he considered agglutinative, Chinook and Algonkin which he considered fusional. The Siouan languages he considered "mildly polysynthetic" and agglutinative-fusional.  Following Sapir's understanding of Polysynthesis, his student Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed a distinction between oligosynthetic and polysynthetic languages, where the former term was applied to languages with a very small number of morphemes of which all other lexical units are composed. No language has been shown to fit the description of an oligosynthetic language and the concept is not in general use in linguistics.

Contemporary approaches.

Generative approaches.

The sentence structure of polysynthetic languages has been taken as a challenge for linguists working within Noam Chomsky's generative theoretical framework that operates with the assumption that all the world's languages share a set of basic syntactic principles.

Non-configurationality and the pronominal argument hypothesis.

Eloise Jelinek, having worked with Salishan and Athabascan languages, proposed an analysis of polysynthetic languages in which the morphemes that agree with the arguments of the verb are not just considered indexes of the arguments, but in fact constitute the primary expression of the arguments within the sentence. Because this theory posits that the pronominal agreement morphemes are the true syntactic arguments of the sentence, Jelinek's hypothesis was called the pronominal argument hypothesis. If the hypothesis were correct, it would mean that free standing nouns in such languages did not constitute syntactical arguments, but simply adjoined specifiers or adjuncts. This in turn explained why many polysynthetic languages seem to be non-configurational, i.e. they have no strict rules for word order and seemingly violate many of the basic rules for syntactic structures posited within the generative framework.

Mark C. Baker's polysynthesis parameter.

In 1996 Mark C. Baker proposed a definition of polysynthesis as a syntactic macroparameter within Noam Chomsky's "principles and parameters" program. He defines polysynthetic languages as languages that conform to the syntactic rule that he calls the "polysynthesis parameter", and that as a result show a special set of morphological and syntactic properties. The polysynthesis parameter states that all phrasal heads must be marked with either agreement morphemes of their direct argument or else incorporate these arguments in that head. This definition of polysynthesis leaves out some languages that are commonly stated as examples of polysynthetic languages (such as Inuktitut), but can be seen as the reason for certain common structural properties in others, such as Mohawk and Nahuatl. Baker's definition, probably because of its heavy dependence on generative theory, has not been accepted as a general definition of polysynthesis.

Johanna Mattissen's affixal and compositional subtypes.

Johanna Mattissen suggests that polysynthetic languages can be fundamentally divided into two typological categories, which differ in the way morphemes are organised to form words. She calls the two types for affixal and compositional polysynthesis respectively.

Affixal.

Affixally polysynthetic languages, as the name suggests, are those that use only non-root-bound morphemes to express concepts that in less synthetic languages are expressed by separate words such as adjectives and adverbs. They also use these bound morphemes to make other nouns and verbs from a basic root, which can lead to very complex word forms without non-lexical suffixes. These bound morphemes often relate to body parts, other essential items of the culture of the language's speakers or features of the landscape where the language is spoken. Deictics and other spatial and temporal relations are also very common among these bound morphemes in affixally polysynthetic languages.  Affixally polysynthetic languages do not use noun incorporation or verb serialisation, since this violates the rule concerning the number of roots allowable per word. Many make a weak distinction between nouns and verbs, which allows using affixes to translate these parts of speech.  Affixally polysynthetic languages may have a word structure that is either  Examples of affixally polysynthetic languages include Inuktitut, Cherokee, Athabaskan languages, the Chimakuan languages (Quileute) and the Wakashan languages.

Compositional.

In compositionally polysynthetic languages, there usually can be more than one free morpheme per word, which gives rise to noun incorporation and verb serialisation to create extremely long words. Bound affixes, though less important in compositionally polysynthetic languages than in affixally polysynthetic languages, tend to be equally abundant in both types.  It is believed that all affixally polysynthetic languages evolved from compositionally polysynthetic ones via the conversion of morphemes that could stand on their own into affixes.  Because they possess a greater number of free morphemes, compositionally polysynthetic languages are much more prone than affixally polysynthetic ones to evolve into simpler languages with less complex words. On the other hand, they are generally easier to distinguish from non-polysynthetic languages than affixally polysynthetic languages.  Examples of compositionally polysynthetic languages include Classical Ainu, Sora, Chukchi, Tonkawa, and most Amazonian languages.

In linguistic typology, polysynthetic languages are highly synthetic languages, i.e. languages in which words are composed of many morphemes (word parts that have independent meaning but may or may not be able to stand alone). They are very highly inflected languages. Polysynthetic languages typically have long "sentence-words" such as the Yupik word'which means "He had not yet said again that he was going to hunt reindeer." The word consists of the morphemes'with the meanings, reindeer-hunt--say--again-; and except for the morpheme "" "reindeer", none of the other morphemes can appear in isolation.

多式综合语(英语:polysynthetic language又称编插语、相抱语、复综语)是综合语的一种,拥有极高的综合语特性。多式综合语的词,都由许多的词素组成。


Design.

As the German "Kaiserliche Marine" (Imperial Navy) continued in its arms race with the British Royal Navy in 1907, the "Reichsmarineamt" (Imperial Navy Office) considered plans for the battlecruiser that was to be built for the following year. An increase in the budget raised the possibility of increasing the caliber of the main battery from the guns used in the previous battlecruiser,, to, but Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, the State Secretary of the Navy, opposed the increase, preferring to add a pair of 28 cm guns instead. The Construction Department supported the change, and ultimately two ships were authorized for the 1908 and 1909 building years; was the first, followed by "Goeben".  "Goeben" was long overall, with a beam of and a draft of fully loaded. The ship displaced normally, and at full load. "Goeben" was powered by four Parsons steam turbines, with steam provided by twenty-four coal-fired Schulz-Thornycroft water-tube boilers. The propulsion system was rated at and a top speed of, though she exceeded this speed significantly on her trials. At, the ship had a range of. Her crew consisted on 43 officers and 1,010 enlisted men.  The ship was armed with a main battery of ten SK L/50 gunss mounted in five twin-gun turrets; of these, one was placed forward, two were "en echelon" amidships, and the other two were in a superfiring pair aft. Her secondary armament consisted of twelve SK L/45 guns placed in individual casemates in the central portion of the ship. For defense against torpedo boats, she carried twelve SK L/45 guns, also in individual mounts in the bow, the stern, and around the forward conning tower. She was also equipped with four submerged torpedo tubes, one in the bow, one in the stern, and one on each broadside.  The ship's armor consisted of Krupp cemented steel. The belt was thick where it covered the ship's ammunition magazines and propulsion machinery spaces. The belt tapered down to on either end. The deck was thick, sloping downward at the side to connect to the bottom edge of the belt. The main battery gun turrets had faces, and they sat atop barbettes that were equally thick.

Service history.

The Imperial German Navy ("Kaiserliche Marine") ordered "Goeben", the third German battlecruiser, on 8 April 1909 under the provisional name "H" from the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, under construction number 201. Her keel was laid on 19 August; the hull was completed and the ship was launched on 28 March 1911. Fitting-out work followed, and she was commissioned into the German Navy on 2 July 1912.  When the First Balkan War broke out in October 1912, the German General Staff determined that a naval Mediterranean Division ("Mittelmeer-Division") was needed to project German power in the Mediterranean, and thus dispatched "Goeben" and the light cruiser to Constantinople. The two ships left Kiel on 4 November and arrived on 15 November 1912. Beginning in April 1913, "Goeben" visited many Mediterranean ports including Venice, Pola, and Naples, before sailing into Albanian waters. Following this trip, "Goeben" returned to Pola and remained there from 21 August to 16 October for maintenance.  On 29 June 1913, the Second Balkan War broke out and the Mediterranean Division was retained in the area. On 23 October 1913, "Konteradmiral" (Rear Admiral) Wilhelm Souchon assumed command of the squadron. "Goeben" and "Breslau" continued their activities in the Mediterranean, and visited some 80 ports before the outbreak of World War I. The navy made plans to replace "Goeben" with her sister "Moltke", but the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia, on 28 June 1914 and the subsequent rise in tensions between the Great Powers made this impossible. After the assassination, Souchon assessed that war was imminent between the Central Powers and the Triple Entente, and ordered his ships to make for Pola for repairs. Engineers came from Germany to work on the ship. "Goeben" had 4,460 boiler tubes replaced, among other repairs. Upon completion, the ships departed for Messina.

World War I.

Pursuit of "Goeben" and "Breslau".

Kaiser Wilhelm II had ordered that in the event of war, "Goeben" and "Breslau" should either conduct raids in the western Mediterranean to prevent the return of French troops from North Africa to Europe, or break out into the Atlantic and attempt to return to German waters, on the squadron commander's discretion. On 3 August 1914, the two ships were en route to Algeria when Souchon received word of the declaration of war against France. "Goeben" bombarded Philippeville (now Skikda, Algeria) for about 10 minutes early on 3 August while "Breslau" shelled Bône (now Annaba, on the site of the ancient city of Hippo) in accordance with the Kaiser's order. Tirpitz and Admiral Hugo von Pohl then transmitted secret orders to Souchon instructing him to sail to Constantinople, in direct contravention of the Kaiser's instructions and without his knowledge.  Since "Goeben" could not reach Constantinople without coaling, Souchon headed for Messina. The Germans encountered the British battlecruisers and, but Germany was not yet at war with Britain and neither side opened fire. The British turned to follow "Goeben" and "Breslau", but the German ships were able to outrun the British, and arrived in Messina by 5 August. Refueling in Messina was complicated by the declaration of Italian neutrality on 2 August. Under international law, combatant ships were permitted only 24 hours in a neutral port. Sympathetic Italian naval authorities in the port allowed "Goeben" and "Breslau" to remain in port for around 36 hours while the ships coaled from a German collier. Despite the additional time, "Goeben"s fuel stocks were not sufficient to permit the voyage to Constantinople, so Souchon arranged to rendezvous with another collier in the Aegean Sea. The French fleet remained in the western Mediterranean, since the French naval commander in the Mediterranean, Admiral Lapeyrère, was convinced the Germans would either attempt to escape to the Atlantic or join the Austrians in Pola. Souchon's two ships departed Messina early on 6 August through the southern entrance to the strait and headed for the eastern Mediterranean. The two British battlecruisers were 100 miles away, while a third,, was coaling in Bizerta, Tunisia. The only British naval force in Souchon's way was the 1st Cruiser Squadron, which consisted of the four armored cruisers,, and under the command of Rear Admiral Ernest Troubridge. The Germans headed initially towards the Adriatic in a feint; the move misled Troubridge, who sailed to intercept them in the mouth of the Adriatic. After realizing his mistake, Troubridge reversed course and ordered the light cruiser and two destroyers to launch a torpedo attack on the Germans. "Breslau"s lookouts spotted the ships, and in the darkness, she and "Goeben" evaded their pursuers undetected. Troubridge broke off the chase early on 7 August, convinced that any attack by his four older armored cruisers against "Goeben"—armed with her larger 28 cm guns—would be suicidal. Souchon's journey to Constantinople was now clear.  "Goeben" refilled her coal bunkers off the island of Donoussa near Naxos. During the afternoon of 10 August, the two ships entered the Dardanelles. They were met by an Ottoman picket boat, which guided them through to the Sea of Marmara. To circumvent neutrality requirements, the Ottoman government proposed that the ships be transferred to its ownership "by means of a fictitious sale." Before the Germans could approve this, the Ottomans announced on 11 August that they had purchased the ships for 80 million Marks. In a formal ceremony the two ships were commissioned in the Ottoman Navy on 16 August. On 23 September, Souchon accepted an offer to command the Turkish fleet. "Goeben" was renamed "Yavuz Sultan Selim" and "Breslau" was renamed ; their German crews donned Ottoman uniforms and fezzes.

Black Sea operations.

1914.

On 29 October "Yavuz" bombarded Sevastopol in her first operation against Imperial Russia, though the Ottoman Empire was not yet at war with the Entente; Souchon conducted the operation to force Turkey into the war on the side of Germany. A shell struck the ship in the after funnel, but it failed to detonate and did negligible damage. Two other hits inflicted minor damage. The ship and her escorts passed through an inactive Russian minefield during the bombardment. As she returned to Turkish waters, "Yavuz" came across the Russian minelayer which scuttled herself with 700 mines on board. During the engagement the escorting Russian destroyer was damaged by two of "Yavuz"s secondary battery shells. In response to the bombardment, Russia declared war on 1 November, thus forcing the Ottomans into the wider world war. France and Great Britain bombarded the Turkish fortresses guarding the Dardanelles on 3 November and formally declared war two days later. From this engagement, the Russians drew the conclusion that the entire Black Sea Fleet would have to remain consolidated so it could not be defeated in detail (one ship at a time) by "Yavuz".  "Yavuz", escorted by "Midilli", intercepted the Russian Black Sea Fleet off the Crimean coastline on 18 November as it returned from a bombardment of Trebizond. Despite the noon hour the conditions were foggy and none of the capital ships were spotted initially. The Black Sea Fleet had experimented with concentrating fire from several ships under the control of one "master" ship before the war, and held her fire until, the master ship, could see "Yavuz". When the gunnery commands were finally received they showed a range over in excess of "Evstafi"s own estimate of, so "Evstafi" opened fire using her own data before "Yavuz" turned to fire her broadside. She scored a hit with her first salvo as a 12-inch shell partially penetrated the armor casemate protecting one of "Yavuz"s secondary guns. It detonated some of the ready-use ammunition, starting a fire that filled the casemate and killed the entire gun crew. A total of thirteen men were killed and three were wounded.  "Yavuz" returned fire and hit "Evstafi" in the middle funnel; the shell detonated after it passed through the funnel and destroyed the antennae for the fire-control radio, so that "Evstafi" could not correct "Ioann Zlatoust"s inaccurate range data. The other Russian ships either used "Ioann Zlatoust"s incorrect data or never saw "Yavuz" and failed to register any hits. "Yavuz" hit "Evstafi" four more times, although one shell failed to detonate, before Souchon decided to break contact after 14 minutes of combat. The four hits out of nineteen shells fired killed 34 men and wounded 24.  The following month, on 5–6 December, "Yavuz" and "Midilli" provided protection for troop transports, and on 10 December, "Yavuz" bombarded Batum. On 23 December, "Yavuz" and the protected cruiser escorted three transports to Trebizond. While returning from another transport escort operation on 26 December, "Yavuz" struck a mine that exploded beneath the conning tower, on the starboard side, about one nautical mile outside the Bosphorus. The explosion tore a hole in the ship's hull, but the torpedo bulkhead held. Two minutes later, "Yavuz" struck a second mine on the port side, just forward of the main battery wing barbette; this tore open a hole. The bulkhead bowed in but retained watertight protection of the ship's interior. However, some 600 tons of water flooded the ship. There was no dock in the Ottoman Empire large enough to service "Yavuz", so temporary repairs were effected inside steel cofferdams, which were pumped out to create a dry work area around the damaged hull. The holes were patched with concrete, which held for several years before more permanent work was necessary.

1915.

Still damaged, "Yavuz" sortied from the Bosphorus on 28 January and again on 7 February 1915 to help "Midilli" escape the Russian fleet; she also covered the return of "Hamidiye". "Yavuz" then underwent repair work to the mine damage until May. On 1 April, with repairs incomplete, "Yavuz" left the Bosphorus in company with "Midilli" to cover the withdrawal of "Hamidiye" and the protected cruiser, which had been sent to bombard Odessa. Strong currents, however, forced the cruisers east to the approaches of the Dnieper-Bug Liman (bay) that led to Nikolayev. As they sailed west after a course correction, "Mecidiye" struck a mine and sank, so this attack had to be aborted. After "Yavuz" and "Midilli" appeared off Sevastopol and sank two cargo steamers, the Russian fleet chased them all day, and detached several destroyers after dusk to attempt a torpedo attack. Only one destroyer,, was able to close the distance and launch an attack, which missed. "Yavuz" and "Midilli" returned to the Bosphorus unharmed. On 25 April, the same day the Allies landed at Gallipoli, Russian naval forces arrived off the Bosphorus and bombarded the forts guarding the strait. Two days later "Yavuz Sultan Selim" headed south to the Dardanelles to bombard Allied troops at Gallipoli, accompanied by the pre-dreadnought battleship. They were spotted at dawn from a kite balloon as they were getting into position. When the first round from the dreadnought landed close by, "Yavuz" moved out of firing position, close to the cliffs, where "Queen Elizabeth" could not engage her. On 30 April "Yavuz" tried again, but was spotted from the pre-dreadnought which had moved into the Dardanelles to bombard the Turkish headquarters at Çanakkale. The British ship only managed to fire five rounds before "Yavuz" moved out of her line of sight.  On 1 May, "Yavuz" sailed to the Bay of Beikos in the Bosphorus after the Russian fleet bombarded the fortifications at the mouth of the Bosphorus. Around 7 May, "Yavuz" sortied from the Bosphorus in search of Russian ships as far as Sevastopol, but found none. Running short on main gun ammunition, she did not bombard Sevastopol. While returning on the morning of 10 May, "Yavuz"s lookouts spotted two Russian pre-dreadnoughts, and, and she opened fire. Within the first ten minutes she had been hit twice, although she was not seriously damaged. Admiral Souchon disengaged and headed for the Bosphorus, pursued by Russian light forces. Later that month two of the ship's 15 cm guns were taken ashore for use there, and the four 8.8 cm guns in the aft superstructure were removed at the same time. Four 8.8 cm anti-aircraft were installed on the aft superstructure by the end of 1915.  On 18 July, "Midilli" struck a mine; the ship took on some of water and was no longer able to escort coal convoys from Zonguldak to the Bosphorus. "Yavuz" was assigned to the task, and on 10 August she escorted a convoy of five coal transports, along with "Hamidiye" and three torpedo boats. During transit, the convoy was attacked by the Russian submarine "Tyulen", which sank one of the colliers. The following day, "Tyulen" and another submarine tried to attack "Yavuz" as well, though they were unable to reach a firing position. Two Russian destroyers, and, attacked a Turkish convoy escorted by "Hamidiye" and two torpedo boats on 5 September. "Hamidiye"s guns broke down during combat, and the Turks summoned "Yavuz", but she arrived too late: the Turkish colliers had already been beached to avoid capture by the Russian destroyers.  On 21 September, "Yavuz Sultan Selim" was again sent out of the Bosphorus to drive off three Russian destroyers which had been attacking Turkish coal ships. Escort missions continued until 14 November, when the submarine nearly hit "Yavuz" with two torpedoes just outside the Bosphorus. Admiral Souchon decided the risk to the battlecruiser was too great, and suspended the convoy system. In its stead, only those ships fast enough to make the journey from Zonguldak to Constantinople in a single night were permitted; outside the Bosphorus they would be met by torpedo boats to defend them against the lurking submarines. By the end of the summer, the completion of two new Russian dreadnought battleships, and, further curtailed "Yavuz"s activities.

1916–1917.

Admiral Souchon sent "Yavuz" to Zonguldak on 8 January to protect an approaching empty collier from Russian destroyers in the area, but the Russians sank the transport ship before "Yavuz" arrived. On the return trip to the Bosphorus, "Yavuz" encountered "Imperatritsa Ekaterina". The two ships engaged in a brief artillery duel, beginning at a range of 18,500 meters. "Yavuz" turned to the southwest, and in the first four minutes of the engagement, fired five salvos from her main guns. Neither ship scored any hits, though shell splinters from near misses struck "Yavuz". Though nominally much faster than "Imperatritsa Ekaterina", the Turkish battlecruiser's bottom was badly fouled and her propeller shafts were in poor condition. This made it difficult for "Yavuz" to escape from the powerful Russian battleship, which was reported to have reached.  Russian forces were making significant gains into Ottoman territory during the Caucasus Campaign. In an attempt to prevent further advances by the Russian army, "Yavuz" rushed 429 officers and men, a mountain artillery battery, machine gun and aviation units, 1,000 rifles, and 300 cases of munitions to Trebizond on 4 February. On 4 March, the Russian navy landed a detachment of some 2,100 men, along with mountain guns and horses, on either side of the port of Atina. The Turks were caught by surprise and forced to evacuate. Another landing took place at Kavata Bay, some 5 miles east of Trebizond, in June. In late June, the Turks counterattacked and penetrated around 20 miles into the Russian lines. "Yavuz" and "Midilli" conducted a series of coastal operations to support the Turkish attacks. On 4 July, "Yavuz" shelled the port of Tuapse, where she sank a steamer and a motor schooner. The Turkish ships sailed northward to circle back behind the Russians before the two Russian dreadnoughts left Sevastopol to try to attack them. They then returned to the Bosphorus, where "Yavuz" was docked for repairs to her propeller shafts until September.  The coal shortage continued to worsen until Admiral Souchon was forced to suspend operations by "Yavuz" and "Midilli" through 1917. After an armistice between Russia and the Ottoman Empire was signed in December 1917 following the Bolshevik revolution, formalized in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, coal started to arrive again from eastern Turkey.

1918.

On 20 January 1918, "Yavuz" and "Midilli" left the Dardanelles under the command of Vice Admiral Rebeur-Paschwitz, who had replaced Souchon the previous September. Rebeur-Paschwitz's intention was to draw Allied naval forces away from Palestine in support of Turkish forces there. Outside the straits, in the course of what became known as the Battle of Imbros, "Yavuz" surprised and sank the monitors and which were at anchor and unsupported by the pre-dreadnoughts that should have been guarding them. Rebeur-Paschwitz then decided to proceed to the port of Mudros; there the British pre-dreadnought battleship was raising steam to attack the Turkish ships. While en route, "Midilli" struck several mines and sank; "Yavuz" hit three mines as well. Retreating to the Dardanelles and pursued by the British destroyers and, she was intentionally beached near Nagara Point just outside the Dardanelles. The British attacked "Yavuz" with bombers from No. 2 Wing of the Royal Naval Air Service while she was grounded and hit her twice, but the bombs from the light aircraft were not heavy enough to do any serious damage. The monitor attempted to shell "Yavuz" on the evening of 24 January, but only managed to fire ten rounds before withdrawing to escape the Turkish artillery fire. The submarine was sent to destroy the damaged ship, but was too late; the old ex-German pre-dreadnought "Turgut Reis" had towed "Yavuz" off and returned her to the safety of Constantinople. "Yavuz" was crippled by the extensive damage; cofferdams were again built around the hull, and repairs lasted from 7 August to 19 October.  "Yavuz" escorted the members of the Ottoman Armistice Commission to Odessa on 30 March 1918, after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed. After returning to Constantinople she sailed in May to Sevastopol where she had her hull cleaned and some leaks repaired. "Yavuz" and several destroyers sailed for Novorossiysk on 28 June to intern the remaining Soviet warships, but they had already been scuttled when the Turkish ships arrived. The destroyers remained, but "Yavuz" returned to Sevastopol. On 14 July the ship was laid up for the rest of the war. While in Sevastopol, dockyard workers scraped fouling from the ship's bottom. "Yavuz" subsequently returned to Constantinople, where from 7 August to 19 October a concrete cofferdam was installed to repair one of the three areas damaged by mines.  The German navy formally transferred ownership of the vessel to the Turkish government on 2 November. According to the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres between the Ottoman Empire and the Western Allies, "Yavuz" was to have been handed over to the Royal Navy as war reparations, but this was not done due to the Turkish War of Independence, which broke out immediately after World War I ended, as Greece attempted to seize territory from the crumbling Ottoman Empire. After modern Turkey emerged from the war victorious, the Treaty of Sèvres was discarded and the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in its place in 1923. Under this treaty, the new Turkish republic retained possession of much of its fleet, including "Yavuz".

Post-war service.

During the 1920s, a commitment to refurbish "Yavuz" as the centerpiece of the new country's fleet was the only constant element of the various naval policies which were put forward. The battlecruiser remained in İzmit until 1926, in a neglected state: only two of her boilers worked, she could not steer or steam, and she still had two unrepaired scars from the mine damage in 1918. Enough money was raised to allow the purchase of a new floating dock from Germany, as "Yavuz" could not be towed anywhere without risk of her sinking in rough seas. The French company Atelier et Chantiers de St. Nazaire-Penhöet was contracted in December 1926 to oversee the subsequent refit, which was carried out by the Gölcük Naval Shipyard. Work proceeded over three years (1927–1930); it was delayed when several compartments of the dock collapsed while being pumped out. "Yavuz" was slightly damaged before she could be refloated and the dock had to be repaired before the repair work could begin. The Minister of Marine, Ihsan Bey (İhsan Eryavuz), was convicted of embezzlement in the resulting investigation. Other delays were caused by fraud charges which resulted in the abolition of the Ministry of Marine. The Turkish Military's Chief of Staff, Marshal Fevzi, opposed naval construction and slowed down all naval building programs following the fraud charges. Intensive work on the battlecruiser only began after the Greek Navy conducted a large-scale naval exercise off Turkey in September 1928 and the Turkish Government perceived a need to counter Greece's naval superiority. The Turks also ordered four destroyers and two submarines from Italian shipyards. The Greek Government proposed a 10-year "holiday" from naval building modeled on the Washington Treaty when it learned that "Yavuz" was to be brought back into service, though it reserved the right to build two new cruisers. The Turkish Government rejected this proposal, and claimed that the ship was intended to counter the growing strength of the Soviet Navy in the Black Sea.  Over the course of the refit, the mine damage was repaired, her displacement was increased to, and the hull was slightly reworked. She was reduced in length by a half meter but her beam increased by. "Yavuz" was equipped with new boilers and a French fire control system for her main battery guns. Two of the 15 cm guns were removed from their casemate positions. Her armor protection was not upgraded to take the lessons of the Battle of Jutland into account, and she had only of armor above her magazines. "Yavuz" was recommissioned in 1930, resuming her role as flagship of the Turkish Navy, and performed better than expected in her speed trials; her subsequent gunnery and fire control trials were also successful. The four destroyers, which were needed to protect the battlecruiser, entered service between 1931 and 1932; their performance never met the design specifications. In response to "Yavuz"s return to service, the Soviet Union transferred the battleship and light cruiser from the Baltic in late 1929 to ensure that the Black Sea Fleet retained parity with the Turkish Navy. The Greek Government also responded by ordering two destroyers.  In 1933, she took Prime Minister İsmet İnönü from Varna to Istanbul and carried the Shah of Iran from Trebizond to Samsun the following year. "Yavuz Sultan Selim" had her name officially shortened to "Yavuz Sultan" in 1930 and then to "Yavuz" in 1936. Another short refit was conducted in 1938, and in November that year she carried the remains of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk from Istanbul to İzmit. She and the other ships of the navy were considered outdated by the British Naval Attache by 1937, partly due to their substandard anti-aircraft armament, but in 1938 the Turkish government began planning to expand the force. Under these plans the surface fleet was to comprise two 10,000 ton cruisers and twelve destroyers. "Yavuz" would be retained until the second cruiser was commissioned in 1945, and the navy expected to build a 23,000 ton ship between 1950 and 1960. The naval building program did not come about, as the foreign shipyards which were to build the ships concentrated on the needs of their own nations leading up to World War II.  "Yavuz" remained in service throughout World War II. In November 1939 she and "Parizhskaya Kommuna" were the only capital ships in the Black Sea region, and "Life" magazine reported that "Yavuz" was superior to the Soviet ship because the latter was in poor condition. In 1941, her anti-aircraft battery was strengthened to four guns, ten guns, and four guns. These were later increased to twenty-two 40 mm guns and twenty-four 20 mm guns. On 5 April 1946, the American battleship, light cruiser, and destroyer arrived in Istanbul to return the remains of Turkish ambassador Münir Ertegün. "Yavuz" greeted the ships in the Bosphorus, where she and "Missouri" exchanged 19-gun salutes.  After 1948, the ship was stationed in either İzmit or Gölcük. She was decommissioned from active service on 20 December 1950 and stricken from the Navy register on 14 November 1954. When Turkey joined NATO in 1952, the ship was assigned the hull number B70. The Turkish government offered to sell the ship to the West German government in 1963 as a museum ship, but the offer was declined. Turkey sold the ship to M.K.E. Seyman in 1971 for scrapping. She was towed to the breakers on 7 June 1973, and the work was completed in February 1976. By the time of her disposal she was the last dreadnought in existence outside the United States.

SMS "Goeben" was the second of two s of the Imperial German Navy, launched in 1911 and named after the German Franco-Prussian War veteran General August Karl von Goeben. Along with her sister ship, "Goeben" was similar to the previous German battlecruiser design,, but larger, with increased armor protection and two more main guns in an additional turret. "Goeben" and "Moltke" were significantly larger and better armored than the comparable British.

陛下之舰格本号()是德意志帝国海军两艘毛奇级大巡洋舰的末舰,得名于普法战争时期的普鲁士宿将奥古斯特·卡尔·冯·格本。格本号与其姊妹舰毛奇号一样,是此前德国战列巡洋舰设计冯·德·坦恩号的增大版本,它们的装甲保护有所加强,并有一座额外的炮塔和多两门主炮。相较于其英国竞争对手不倦级,格本号及毛奇号明显更大、装甲更好。