One of the reasons that the negotiations in the UK had such disappointing results was a view that there was no realistic plan B. But the Germans have shown us that there’s a pretty good one: just manage somehow until Elsevier caves in.

It will be very interesting to see whether Elsevier tries to get the Germans to pay for this access that has been restored. If I were a German negotiator, then one of the first things I would say is, “We didn’t ask for this, so we’re not paying for it.” My guess is that Elsevier has taken this action because it is *very* dangerous for them if it becomes widely known that a whole country can manage just fine when access to ScienceDirect was cut off — a bit inconvenient yes, but by no means a disaster.

German scientists regain access to Elsevier journals

Publisher restores access as negotiations for a nationwide licence continue. ]]>

The law relating to pensions gives trustees wide discretion in choice of discount rate. They do NOT have to use FRS17.

It is highly questionable whether USS is in deficit or if it is by how much. Have a look at this article which questions the whole methodology for valuing pension schemes:

Also have a look at this article by a firm of actuaries who believe in DB pensions instead of doom mongers like you:

The point is that pensions are in better shape if valued on an ongoing basis than if valued using short term risk and expectations of closing.

Mathematicians have a lot to answer for by ignoring the economics that underlies pensions. Sometimes they talk as if the world is going to cease. The economy is going to continue to make profits from which pension funds can benefit and the universities that are members of USS are going to continue in existence on an ongoing basis.

]]>Is the USS going to be around to pay my pension in 10 years time or I am going to be in line for food banks??

God help us from another financial meltdown…it is coming… ]]>

In your post you write “Cambridge, for example, has paid over £750,000 this year in article processing charges, from a grant provided for the purpose”.

Is this on top of the £1,161,571 that they are spending per year, according to the FOI data? If there is off-setting going on, do we know how much?

Richard

]]>One should also ask for E to be positive.

]]>For example, for a function like f(x)=1/x, the ‘domain’ is usually set to be the set of objects for which this function is defined, i.e. R/{0}, the ‘range’ as the set of values the function can take on, i.e. also R/{0}, but the co-domain would be R … Which is clearly not the ‘domain’ of the converse, or inverse, of this function.

Another question I have here is where the R comes from: why would we think that we are initially/immediately talking about real numbers when talking about functions like 1/x? Couldn’t I be talking about complex numbers, say? Indeed, why do we indicate some kind of ‘intended’ set of ‘potential’ values of the function on the output side (the ‘co-domain’), but don’t do this on the input side?

Indeed, I think it *would* make a lot of sense to *first* define a set of objects that the function is *intended* to work on (which we could call a ‘domain of discourse’), and then point out any values for which the function is actually defined (which we would call the ‘domain of definition’). And with that, we could have a ‘co-domain of discourse’ and a ‘co-domain of definition’ as the converse’s counterparts. Thus, for the function f(x)=1/x we could say that the domain and co-domain of discourse are both R, but the domain and co-domain of definition R/{0}.

In fact, I have been taking the lack of standards (or logical consistency) in the terminology as justification to use exactly this terminology when I teach my students about functions. It may not be ‘standard’, but I think it is certainly a lot more consistent and coherent … What do you think?

]]>What a load of tosh.

This blog well out of date, as Michael Gove is long gone as education minister. Clearly the originator..Gowers…doesn’t keep it current.

Hmc

Sent from Windows Mail

]]>