Binghamton University

About: Binghamton University is a education organization based out in Binghamton, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 9578 authors who have published 20916 publications receiving 679579 citations. The organization is also known as: State University of New York at Binghamton & SUNY Binghamton.

Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications

Abstract: Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic is a true magnum opus. An enlargement of Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information—an earlier work of Professor Klir and Tina Folger—Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic addresses practically every significant topic in the broad expanse of the union of fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic. To me Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic is a remarkable achievement; it covers its vast territory with impeccable authority, deep insight and a meticulous attention to detail. To view Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic in a proper perspective, it is necessary to clarify a point of semantics which relates to the meanings of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. A frequent source of misunderstanding fias to do with the interpretation of fuzzy logic. The problem is that the term fuzzy logic has two different meanings. More specifically, in a narrow sense, fuzzy logic, FLn, is a logical system which may be viewed as an extension and generalization of classical multivalued logics. But in a wider sense, fuzzy logic, FL^ is almost synonymous with the theory of fuzzy sets. In this context, what is important to recognize is that: (a) FLW is much broader than FLn and subsumes FLn as one of its branches; (b) the agenda of FLn is very different from the agendas of classical multivalued logics; and (c) at this juncture, the term fuzzy logic is usually used in its wide rather than narrow sense, effectively equating fuzzy logic with FLW In Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic, fuzzy logic is interpreted in a sense that is close to FLW. However, to avoid misunderstanding, the title refers to both fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Underlying the organization of Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic is a fundamental fact, namely, that any field X and any theory Y can be fuzzified by replacing the concept of a crisp set in X and Y by that of a fuzzy set. In application to basic fields such as arithmetic, topology, graph theory, probability theory and logic, fuzzification leads to fuzzy arithmetic, fuzzy topology, fuzzy graph theory, fuzzy probability theory and FLn. Similarly, hi application to applied fields such as neural network theory, stability theory, pattern recognition and mathematical programming, fuzzification leads to fuzzy neural network theory, fuzzy stability theory, fuzzy pattern recognition and fuzzy mathematical programming. What is gained through fuzzification is greater generality, higher expressive power, an enhanced ability to model real-world problems and, most importantly, a methodology for exploiting the tolerance for imprecision—a methodology which serves to achieve tractability,

A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems

Abstract: This article discusses the conduct and evaluatoin of interpretive research in information systems. While the conventions for evaluating information systems case studies conducted according to the natural science model of social science are now widely accepted, this is not the case for interpretive field studies. A set of principles for the conduct and evaluation of interpretive field research in information systems is proposed, along with their philosophical rationale. The usefulness of the principles is illustrated by evaluating three published interpretive field studies drawn from the IS research literature. The intention of the paper is to further reflect and debate on the important subject of grounding interpretive research methodology.

Lithium Batteries and Cathode Materials

Abstract: In the previous paper Ralph Brodd and Martin Winter described the different kinds of batteries and fuel cells. In this paper I will describe lithium batteries in more detail, building an overall foundation for the papers that follow which describe specific components in some depth and usually with an emphasis on the materials behavior. The lithium battery industry is undergoing rapid expansion, now representing the largest segment of the portable battery industry and dominating the computer, cell phone, and camera power source industry. However, the present secondary batteries use expensive components, which are not in sufficient supply to allow the industry to grow at the same rate in the next decade. Moreover, the safety of the system is questionable for the large-scale batteries needed for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV). Another battery need is for a high-power system that can be used for power tools, where only the environmentally hazardous Ni/ Cd battery presently meets the requirements. A battery is a transducer that converts chemical energy into electrical energy and vice versa. It contains an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte. The anode, in the case of a lithium battery, is the source of lithium ions. The cathode is the sink for the lithium ions and is chosen to optimize a number of parameters, discussed below. The electrolyte provides for the separation of ionic transport and electronic transport, and in a perfect battery the lithium ion transport number will be unity in the electrolyte. The cell potential is determined by the difference between the chemical potential of the lithium in the anode and cathode, ∆G ) -EF. As noted above, the lithium ions flow through the electrolyte whereas the electrons generated from the reaction, Li ) Li+ + e-, go through the external circuit to do work. Thus, the electrode system must allow for the flow of both lithium ions and electrons. That is, it must be both a good ionic conductor and an electronic conductor. As discussed below, many electrochemically active materials are not good electronic conductors, so it is necessary to add an electronically conductive material such as carbon * To whom correspondence should be addressed. Phone and fax: (607) 777-4623. E-mail: stanwhit@binghamton.edu. 4271 Chem. Rev. 2004, 104, 4271−4301

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.