I need to prove the following conclusion ∀x∀y∀z((Indiff(x,y)∧StrongPref(z,x))→StrongPref(z,y)) using some OR all of the following premises:

P5: ∀x∀y(StrongPref(x,y)→ ¬StrongPref(y,x))

P6: ∀x∀y∀z((StrongPref(x,y)∧StrongPref(y,z))→StrongPref(x,z))

P7: ∀xIndiff(x,x)

P8: ∀x∀y(Indiff(x,y)→Indiff(y,x))

P9: ∀x∀y∀z((StrongPref(x,y)∧Indiff(y,z))→StrongPref(x,z))

P10: ∀x∀y(StrongPref(x,y)∨Indiff(x,y)∨StrongPref(y,x))

P11: ∀x∀y(WeakPref(x,y)↔(StrongPref(x,y)∨Indiff(x,y)))this has to be done using the FITCH program but i don’t know how to do this

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

I need to prepare the weekly status report. For 4 weeks. And also  i need JOB RESPONSIBLITIES AND JOB DUTIES FOR BELOW JD.

I have attached a file for reference.

These are the topics : All the topics should be covered from monday to friday.

Please divide the work into points and also arrange them monday to friday as per the topics.

Need atleast 4 pages of this topics everything. 

1st page – 1st week , 2nd page- 2nd week, 3rd page- 3rd week , 4th page- 4th week.

Please help me out.

• Server-side scripting experience with knowledge of Servlets/ Servlet Filters
• Experience in Shell Scripting
• Experience on Linux OS/Linux Server
• IAM Expertise- OpenSSO, Okta, LDAP
• AWS knowledge- EC2 preferred.
• Scrum, Agile Methodologies, Code Reviews.
• Good to have: Experience in JWT/ Spring Security. 
• Work with the current team on IAM authentication process.
• Integrate the new features with the existing IAM system.
• Creating web filters for the existing product.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

I need to predict the location of the minima x’ in a free energy function F(x) in a regular solution model.

How do I determine the derivative ∂ΔF/∂x where the minima of the derivative obey the equation “ln( x’/(1-x’))= -cAB(1-2x’)”.

I need to show that for a poorly soluble solute (i.e. x’ <<1), the above equation can be approximated asx’ ~ exp (-cAB).

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

I need to summarize it to 3~4 sentences

Privatizing the Military

The voluntary US military is, in many ways, a social engineer- ing project. The public understands the military as a service organization, dedicated to protecting the country’s interests. Yet, when recruits sign up, they are promised training and job opportunities. Individual motivations vary tremendously, but many are enticed by the opportunity to travel the world, partici- pate in a cause with a purpose, and get the heck out of Dodge. Everyone expects basic training to be physically hard, but few recognize that some of the most grueling aspects of signing up have to do with the diversification project that is central to the formation of the American military.

When a soldier is in combat, she must trust her fellow sol- diers with her life. And she must be willing to do what it takes to protect the rest of her unit. In order to make that possible, the military must wage war on prejudice. This is not an easy task. Plenty of generals fought hard to fight racial desegregation and to limit the role of women in combat. Yet, the US military was desegregated in 1948, six years before Brown v. Board forced desegregation of schools. And the Supreme Court ruled that LGB individuals could openly serve in the military before they could legally marry.

Morale is often raised as the main reason that soldiers should 10 not be forced to entrust their lives to people who are different than them. Yet, time and again, this justification collapses under broader interests to grow the military. As a result, commanders are forced to find ways to build up morale across difference, to actively and intentionally seek to break down barriers to teamwork, and to find a way to gel a group of people whose demographics, values, politics, and ideologies are as varied as the country’s.

In the process, they build one of the most crucial social infrastructures of the country. They build the diverse social fabric that underpins democracy.

Tons of money was poured into defense after 9/11, but the number of people serving in the US military today is far lower than it was throughout the 1980s. Why? Starting in the 1990s and accelerating after 9/11, the US privatized huge chunks of the military. This means that private contractors and their employees play critical roles in everything from providing food services to equipment maintenance to military housing. The impact of this on the role of the military in society is significant. For example, this undermines recruits’ ability to get training to develop critical skills that will be essential for them in civilian life. Instead, while serving on active duty, they spend a much higher amount of time on the front lines and in high-risk battle, increasing the likeli- hood that they will be physically or psychologically harmed. The impact on skills development and job opportunities is tremen- dous, but so is the impact on the diversification of the social fabric.

Private vendors are not engaged in the same social engi- neering project as the military and, as a result, tend to hire and fire people based on their ability to work effectively as a team. Like many companies, they have little incentive to invest in helping diverse teams learn to work together as effectively as possible. Building diverse teams—especially ones in which members depend on each other for their survival—is extremely hard, time-consuming, and emotionally exhausting. As a result, private companies focus on “culture fit,” emphasize teams that get along, and look for people who already have the necessary skills, all of which helps reinforce existing segregation patterns.

The end result is that, in the last 20 years, we’ve watched one of our major structures for diversification collapse without anyone taking notice. And because of how it’s happened, it’s also connected to job opportunities and economic opportunity for many working- and middle-class individuals, seeding resent- ment and hatred.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Font: Times New Roman, 12, 1 ½ spacing. 

The paper has to include a recognised documentation system for the citation of course literature and/or other sources. Please use one of the following systems: the Harvard system.

Note that plagiarism is not allowed. All suspected plagiarism is reported to the university and disciplinary actions may be taken.

Assignment 1

Assignment 2

multicultural policy/iesindigenous population

Assignment 3

Reading Books:

• Jenkins, R (2008). Social Identity, London: Routledge.

• Martinello, M. & Rath, J. (red). 2010. Selected Studies in International

Migration and Immigrant Incorporation Amsterdam. Amsterdam University Press

(640 pp.)

• Özkirimli, U. 2017 (2010). Theories of Nationalism. A critical introduction. London.

Macmillan. (288 pp.)

Articles and books available online:

• Amin, Ash “Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity” in Environment

and Planning A 2002, volume 34, p 959-980 (online)

• Blan, Judith R. and Brown, Eric “Du Bois and Diasporic Identity: The Veil and the

Unveiling Project” in Lyall Smith, Keri and Leavy, Patricia (ed) (2008) Hybrid

Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations. Boston: Brill Academy Publisher

chapter 3, on line: Ebrary.

• Barry, Brian (1998) “The Limits of Cultural Politics”, Review of International Studies

24(3): 307-319.

• Barth, William Kurt (2008) On Cultural Rights: The Equality of Nations and the

Minority Legal Tradition (chapter 5, p 155-201): Martines Nijhoff Publisher [ebrary

reader].

• Darling Wolf, Fabienne “Disturbingly Hybrid or Distressingly Patriarchal? Gender

Hybridity in a Global Environment” Chapter 4 in Lyall Smith, Keri and Leavy,

Patricia (ed) (2008) Hybrid Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations.

Boston: Brill Academy Publisher (on line: Ebrary)

• Elgenius, Gabriella (2011) ‘The politics of recognition: symbols, nation building and

rival nationalisms’, Nations and Nationalism (Volume 17, Issue 2).

• Hellström, Anders, Nilsson, Tom and Pauline Stoltz (2012) ‘Nationalism vs.

Nationalism: The Challenge of the Sweden Democrats in the Swedish Public Debate’,

Government and Opposition (Volume 47, Issue 2).

• Joppke, Christian (2004) “The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state”, The

British Journal of Sociology, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp. 237-257.

• Kukathas, Chandran (1998) “Liberalism and Multiculturalism: The Politics of

Indifference”, Political Theory 26(5): 686-699.

• Kymlicka, Will (1996) “Interpreting Group Rights”, The Good Society 6(2): 8-11.

• Kymlicka, Will (1998) “Introduction: An Emerging Consensus?”, Ethical Theory and

Moral Practice 1(2): 143-157.

• Kymlicka, Will (2010) “Testing the Liberal Multicultural Hypothesis: Normative

Theories and Social Science Evidence”, Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(2):

257-271.

• Margalit, Avishai and Halbertal, Moshe (2004/1994) “Liberalism and the Right to

Culture”, Social Research 71(3): 529-548.

• Medda-Windischer, Roberta “Changing Paradigm in the Traditional Dichotomy of

Old and New Minorities” (p195-218) in Studies in International Minority and Group

Rights, Volume 1 : Double Standards Pertaining to Minority Protection (2010) (Ed)

Henrard, Kristin: Brill Academic Publishers [ebrary reader].

• Moller Okin, Susan (1998) “Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions”, Ethics

108(4): 661-684.

• Pantea, Maria-Carmen: From ‘Making a Living’ to ‘Getting ahead’: Roma Women’s

Experiences of Migration in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Volume 38:8

2012 p1251-1268 (online).

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"