imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (54 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[Four color theorem]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ----
| | <small> |
| The '''four color theorem''', sometimes known as the '''four color map theorem''' or '''Guthrie's problem''', is a [[problem]] in [[cartography]] and [[mathematics]]. It had been noticed that it only required four [[color]]s to fill in the different [[contiguous]] [[shape]]s on a [[map]] of regions or [[country|countries]] or [[province]]s in a flat surface known as a [[plane (geometry)|plane]] such that no two [[adjacent]] regions with a common [[boundary]] had the same color. But proving this [[proposition]] proved extraordinarily difficult, and it required [[analysis]] by high-powered [[computer]]s before the problem could be solved. In mathematical history, there had been numerous attempts to prove the supposition, but these so-called [[proof (mathematics)|proofs]] turned out to be flawed. There had been accepted proofs that a map could be colored in using more colors than four, such as six or five, but proving that only four colors were required was not done successfully until 1976 by mathematicians Appel and Haken, although some mathematicians do not accept it since parts of the proof consisted of an analysis of [[discrete]] cases by a computer.<ref name=Math1>{{cite news
| | ==Footnotes== |
| |title= Four-Color Theorem
| |
| |publisher= Wolfram MathWorld
| |
| |quote= Six colors can be proven to suffice for the g=0 case, and this number can easily be reduced to five, but reducing the number of colors all the way to four proved very difficult. This result was finally obtained by Appel and Haken (1977), who constructed a computer-assisted proof that four colors were sufficient. However, because part of the proof consisted of an exhaustive analysis of many discrete cases by a computer, some mathematicians do not accept it. However, no flaws have yet been found, so the proof appears valid. A shorter, independent proof was constructed by Robertson et al. (1996; Thomas 1998).
| |
| |date= 2010-04-18
| |
| |url= http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Four-ColorTheorem.html
| |
| |accessdate= 2010-04-18
| |
| }}</ref> But, at the present time, the proof remains viable, and was confirmed independently by Robertson and Thomas in association with other mathematicians in 1996–1998 who have offered a simpler version of the proof, but it is still complex, even for advanced mathematicians.<ref name=Math1/> It is possible that an even simpler, more elegant, proof will someday be discovered, but many mathematicians think that a shorter, more elegant and simple proof is impossible. | |
| | |
| ''[[Four color theorem|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[Four color theorem#References|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
Latest revision as of 09:19, 11 September 2020
The Mathare Valley slum near Nairobi, Kenya, in 2009.
Poverty is deprivation based on lack of material resources. The concept is value-based and political. Hence its definition, causes and remedies (and the possibility of remedies) are highly contentious.[1] The word poverty may also be used figuratively to indicate a lack, instead of material goods or money, of any kind of quality, as in a poverty of imagination.
Definitions
Primary and secondary poverty
The use of the terms primary and secondary poverty dates back to Seebohm Rowntree, who conducted the second British survey to calculate the extent of poverty. This was carried out in York and was published in 1899. He defined primary poverty as having insufficient income to “obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency”. In secondary poverty, the income “would be sufficient for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency were it not that some portion of it is absorbed by some other expenditure.” Even with these rigorous criteria he found that 9.9% of the population was in primary poverty and a further 17.9% in secondary.[2]
Absolute and comparative poverty
More recent definitions tend to use the terms absolute and comparative poverty. Absolute is in line with Rowntree's primary poverty, but comparative poverty is usually expressed in terms of ability to play a part in the society in which a person lives. Comparative poverty will thus vary from one country to another.[3] The difficulty of definition is illustrated by the fact that a recession can actually reduce "poverty".
Causes of poverty
The causes of poverty most often considered are:
- Character defects
- An established “culture of poverty”, with low expectations handed down from one generation to another
- Unemployment
- Irregular employment, and/or low pay
- Position in the life cycle (see below) and household size
- Disability
- Structural inequality, both within countries and between countries. (R H Tawney: “What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice a problem of riches”)[4]
As noted above, most of these, or the extent to which they can be, or should be changed, are matters of heated controversy.
- ↑ Alcock, P. Understanding poverty. Macmillan. 1997. ch 1.
- ↑ Harris, B. The origins of the British welfare state. Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Also, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- ↑ Alcock, Pt II
- ↑ Alcock, Preface to 1st edition and pt III.
