chunk_id
stringlengths 5
8
| chunk
stringlengths 1
1k
|
|---|---|
1315_3 | The specimen, which was catalogued under the specimen number IVPP V9492, consists of teeth, most of the vertebral column (save for the first seven (neck vertebrae) and the end of the tail), , the right shoulder girdle and arm (, , , , , and ), and the right hip girdle and leg (, , , , , and ). At the time of its discovery, the specimen was already weathered. After it was transported to Beijing, with preparation and restoration work beginning in 1985, it deteriorated further due to fluctuations in temperature and humidity. Nearly all of the bones underwent reconstruction and painting, and many of them were encased in a metal armature for display. The referral of the fragmentary teeth to the specimen was unexplained, and they can no longer be located along with two ribs, two of the wrist, a of the ankle, and some bones of the tail. They also located several (from the underside of the tail), the bottom end of the left femur, and parts of the left hand that were not mentioned by |
1315_4 | Zhao. |
1315_5 | In 1993, Xijing Zhao described IVPP V9492 as the type specimen of a new genus and species, Klamelisaurus gobiensis. Due to the condition of the specimen, he only conducted a "simple description". The generic name Klamelisaurus refers to the Kelameili Mountains to the north of Jiangjunmiao, of which "Klameli" is a variant spelling. The specific name gobiensis refers to the Gobi Desert, in which Jiangjunmiao is located. Following Zhao's description, IVPP V9492 received limited attention in the literature until it was redescribed by Andrew Moore and colleagues in 2020. They noted that the specimen's reconstruction had been altered since Zhao's description, namely by the addition of a frontward-projecting process on the 15th and the removal of a fabricated connection to the (vertebral body).
Description |
1315_6 | Klamelisaurus was described as a "relatively large" sauropod by Zhao in 1993. In 2016, American paleontologist Gregory S. Paul estimated its length at in length and in weight, albeit based on the hypothesis that Klamelisaurus represented the adult form of Bellusaurus. In 2020, Moore and colleagues listed a number of characteristics (following a 2013 study by Michael Taylor and Mathew Wedel) which identified the type specimen as an adult: the lack of unfused sutures in the vertebral centra; the fusion of the (hip vertebrae), the fusion of the cervical ribs to their corresponding centra; and the fusion of the scapula and coracoid in the shoulder. |
1315_7 | Vertebrae |
1315_8 | Zhao stated that the type specimen of Klamelisaurus preserved nine cervicals (neck vertebrae), out of an estimated total of sixteen with a total length of . Moore and colleagues concurred with the number of cervicals, but they noted that the tenth preserved vertebra shows characteristics of both cervicals and (back vertebrae). They estimated a total of fifteen to seventeen cervicals, based on other sauropods with similar patterns of vertebral variation, and indicated that Klamelisaurus had a shorter neck than Omeisaurus tianfuensis, Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis, and M. sinocanadorum. Zhao's original diagnosis or list of distinguishing characteristics (which have been reassessed as being widespread among sauropods) noted that the cervicals were (with centra convex in front and concave behind); had centra 1.5 to 2 times the length of the dorsal centra; and had tall , which were bifid (two-pronged) at the back of the neck. Moore and colleagues noted two unique features (autapomorphies) |
1315_9 | in the cervicals. First, the spinoprezygapophyseal (SPRLs), ridges of bone extending forward from the neural spines, bore irregular, plate-like extensions. Second, below the SPRLs and in front of depressions called the spinodiapophyseal (SDFs), the sides of the centra bore a set of deep (openings). Although these foramina were present only on the right side of the centra, Moore and colleagues considered them to be unique due to their consistency and the presence of similar structures in other sauropods. |
1315_10 | A number of sauropods possess laminae or struts that cross the SDFs in their cervical vertebrae, linking the projecting from the back of the vertebrae to the extending from the front of the vertebrae. These include Euhelopus (where it is a distinguishing characteristic) and Nigersaurus; this structure has been named the "epipophyseal-prezygapophyseal lamina" (EPRL). Moore and colleagues considered two structures in Klamelisaurus to potentially correspond to the EPRL: extensions of the epipophyses that invade the SDFs from the rear, and isolated struts in the middle of the SDFs. Similar structures in Uberabatitan had previously been considered as evidence of a "segmented EPRL". However, for Klamelisaurus, Moore and colleagues interpreted the former to be an attachment for the intercristal muscles of the neck, based on the surface texture and comparisons with ostriches, while they considered the latter to be a pneumatic structure created by . Thus, they argued that previous literature |
1315_11 | had conflated distinct and diverse muscular and pneumatic structures as components of the EPRL. |
1315_12 | Moore and colleagues identified twelve dorsals and six sacrals in the type specimen of Klamelisaurus. (Zhao previously identified the first sacral of Moore and colleagues as the last dorsal, giving thirteen dorsals and five sacrals.) Although sacral vertebrae are usually identified by contact with the ilium, these bones are not in association in the type specimen. Instead, Moore and colleagues noted a bridge of bone connecting the and (processes on the side of the vertebra), which was either fused to the lost sacral rib (as in other sauropods) or was not associated with a rib at all. Zhao's diagnosis noted that the dorsals were opisthocoelous; the dorsals had shallow (neurovascular openings) and simple lamination (ridging); the dorsal neural spines were low, with the first few being bifid and the last few having expanded tips; the sacral centra were fused such that their boundaries were not visible; and the first four sacral neural spines were fused. Moore and colleagues identified |
1315_13 | two unique features in the dorsals. First, the sides of some of the dorsals bore sets of three posterior centroparapophyseal laminae (PCPLs). Second, the spinodiapophyseal laminae (SPDLs) on the sides of the neural spines were bifurcated in the middle and rear dorsals, but unlike Bellusaurus the two prongs did not reach the SPRLs or the SPOLs (spinopostzygapophyseal laminae, the rear counterparts of the SPRLs). |
1315_14 | Parts of nineteen (tail vertebrae) were found by Moore and colleagues: parts of the first four caudals (labelled as caudals 1–4), five more neural spines from the front of the tail (labelled as caudals 6 and 8–11), and eleven centra from the middle of the tail (labelled as caudals 18–27 and 33). Zhao originally counted two complete caudals, ten neural spines from the front, and ten middle centra, based on which he estimated that sixty were originally present with a total length of . Zhao's list of characteristics indicated that the first few caudals were (with centra concave in front and convex behind), with the rest being (with centra concave on both ends); and the caudal neural spines were claviform (thicker at the tip) and slanted extremely to the rear. Characteristics of the caudals that differentiate Klamelisaurus from Tienshanosaurus include the procoelous front caudals, and the front edge of the tip of the neural spines being slanted to the point of reaching behind the rear |
1315_15 | edge of the processes known as . |
1315_16 | Limbs and limb girdles
In terms of limb proportions, Zhao indicated that the forelimb of Klamelisaurus was three-quarters the length of the hindlimb, and the ulna and tibia were respectively two-thirds the lengths of the humerus and femur. He considered these proportions to be distinguishing characteristics of Klamelisaurus. |
1315_17 | According to Zhao, Klamelisaurus had a thin, elongated scapula and a slender, small coracoid (the former being 4.3 to 4.5 times the length of the latter), but Moore and colleagues did not consider his measurements of the scapula to be reliable as most of the bone was covered by plaster and paint. The , located at the outer bottom end of the scapula, was broader than in Cetiosaurus, Shunosaurus, and many early-diverging sauropodomorphs, and the top edge of the acromion was straight, not concave like Tienshanosaurus. Zhao observed that the top of the humerus was thick, and slightly curved. Unlike Bellusaurus and many neosauropods, the head of the humerus did not have an overhanging sub-circular process. Moore and colleagues noted a unique characteristic of the humerus: the front surface of the top inner end bore a depression, which was bordered by an S-shaped shelf ending in a rounded bump. Zhao n that the ulna was longer than the relatively straight radius, and he suggested that the |
1315_18 | degree of expansion of the upper ulna was unique; Moore and colleagues instead found that it was comparable to many other sauropods. Also unlike Bellusaurus, the anteromedial process at the top of the ulna had a convex (not flat) surface that sloped below the . The bottom of the front of the radius bore a depression, which Haestasaurus also had, but was otherwise uncommon among sauropods. |
1315_19 | Zhao's diagnosis for the hips and legs of Klamelisaurus included a robust ilium with an indistinct "laminar ridge" and a forward-projecting (attachment to the pubis); a slender ischium; a robust, thin, flat, and weakly curved pubis (however, this bone appears to be reconstructed); a thick and flat femur with an indistinct head and a (the attachment for the muscle) located near the top of the bone; and a tibia shorter than the fibula (however, these bones are either incomplete or heavily reconstructed). Moore and colleagues noted that the anterolateral and anteromedial processes at the top of the tibia formed an acute angle in Klamelisaurus, unlike Bellusaurus where they formed an angle of 80°. They also identified a distinguishing characteristic in the first of the (possibly right) foot: there was a flange-like ridge overhanging the inner edge of the shaft. This bone was shorter than the large and recurved claw of the third toe on the right foot. Both of these foot bones, among |
1315_20 | others, were described by Zhao as hand bones. |
1315_21 | Classification
Early classifications
In his 1993 description, Zhao placed Klamelisaurus as the only genus in a new subfamily, Klamelisaurinae, for which he also provided a diagnosis. (A number of Zhao's distinguishing characteristics listed above pertain to Klamelisaurinae instead of Klamelisaurus directly.) He considered it to be "early to middle stage sauropod" with "transitional characters". As for the higher-level taxonomy of Klamelisaurus, the sauropod classification used by Zhao was an antiquated scheme attributed by Zhao to a 1958 publication by C. C. Young (although in 1983 he had attributed it to a 1961 publication by Oskar Kuhn): the Sauropoda was divided into the primitive Bothrosauropodoidea (misspelt as "Bothrosauropodea" by Zhao) and the derived ("advanced") Homalosauropodoidea (misspelt as "Homolosauropodoidea" and "Homolosauropodea" by Zhao), which could be distinguished based on dental and vertebral characteristics. He assigned Klamelisaurus to the former. |
1315_22 | Within the "early stage" Bothrosauropodoidea, Zhao considered Klamelisaurus to be part of the Brachiosauridae, which by his definition included the modern Brachiosauridae alongside Cetiosauridae (as "Cetiosaurinae"), Camarasaurinae, and Euhelopodidae (as "Euhelopodinae"). Among these groups, he considered Klamelisaurus to be closest to Camarasaurinae due to the cervicals being longer than the dorsals; the bifid cervical and dorsal neural spines; the "well-developed" pleurocoels; the relatively short forelimb; and the fibula-femur length ratio. However, he noted that the combination of more than twelve cervicals, thirteen dorsals, five sacrals with four fused, and other characteristics in Klamelisaurus was distinct from these other groups, warranting the creation of a new subfamily. |
1315_23 | Subsequent literature has not used Zhao's taxonomy for Klamelisaurus. In the 2004 second edition of The Dinosauria, Paul Upchurch, Paul Barrett, and Peter Dodson considered Klamelisaurus to be a sauropod of uncertain phylogenetic relationships (incertae sedis), and suggested that it can be distinguished by fusion of the last three cervical neural spines. (However, in 2020, Moore and colleagues noted that it did not possess this trait.) Based on the broad, spatula-like teeth (considered by Moore and colleagues to be of questionable affiliation), the estimated presence of sixteen cervicals, the presence of five sacrals, and the forked chevrons, Upchurch and colleagues noted a resemblance between Klamelisaurus and Omeisaurus. Thus, they suggested that it could be a non-neosauropod eusauropod.
Redescription |
1315_24 | In their 2020 redescription of Klamelisaurus, Moore and colleagues provided the first phylogenetic analysis of its relationships. They added Klamelisaurus to two different datasets: one used by José Carballido and colleagues in their 2015 description of Padillasaurus, and one used by Bernardo Gonzàlez Riga and colleagues in their 2018 redescription of Mendozasaurus. To both, they added various members of the Mamenchisauridae — a group that many Middle-to-Late Jurassic Chinese sauropods have been assigned to. Since previous analyses failed to find Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus species as unified (monophyletic) groups, their analysis focused on resolving the relationships of individual specimens rather than genera. They conducted three variants of each analysis: a parsimony-based analysis, an implied-weights analysis to optimize for homologous (i.e., derived from a shared ancestor) features, and a Bayesian (likelihood-based) analysis to account for the age of each specimen. |
1315_25 | All of their analyses recovered Klamelisaurus as part of a group of Middle-to-Late Jurassic sauropods that also included Mamenchisaurus, Chuanjiesaurus, Analong (as a referred specimen of Chuanjiesaurus), Wamweracaudia, Qijianglong, a specimen from Thailand (the Phu Kradung taxon), and a specimen from Xinjiang (the Shishugou cervicodorsal vertebrae). They termed these the "core Mamenchisaurus-like taxa". The parsimony-based and implied-weights analyses for the Carballido dataset found Klamelisaurus close to the Phu Kradung and Shishugou specimens, as well as M. youngi; the Bayesian analysis found M. constructus and M. hochuanensis closer than the latter two. The parsimony-based analysis for the Gonzàlez Riga dataset found Klamelisaurus close to M. youngi, M. hochuanensis, and Qijianglong; and the implied-weights and Bayesian analyses found it close to the Phu Kradung and Shishugou specimens, with the latter also including Chuanjiesaurus, M. constructus, and Euhelopus. |
1315_26 | Nearly all of their analyses found the "core Mamenchisaurus-like taxa" to be closely related to Euhelopus, Daxiatitan, and Dongbeititan, traditionally considered part of the more derived Macronaria. They recovered this wider group — which they termed the Euhelopodidae — outside of the Neosauropoda; the implied-weights analysis on the Carballido dataset placed it as an early-diverging macronarian lineage, also including Bellusaurus, while the implied-weights analysis on the Gonzàlez Riga dataset found Euhelopus among macronarians as a somphospondyl (in which case they called the group Mamenchisauridae). For all analyses, the support (or "likelihood") values for groupings within the Euhelopodidae were low. They considered the results of the implied-weights and Bayesian analyses of the Gonzàlez Riga dataset to be most favorable; still, the results of the two analyses differed profoundly. Thus, they highlighted a need for further redescriptions and revisions of these sauropods |
1315_27 | (particularly Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus) as well as the development of more distinguishing characteristics. |
1315_28 | Below, two phylogenetic trees show the internal relationships of Euhelopodidae/Mamenchisauridae in the two analyses Moore and colleagues deemed most favorable, the implied-weights and Bayesian analyses of the Gonzàlez Riga dataset.
Topology A: Implied-weights analysis, Gonzàlez Riga dataset
Topology B: Time-calibrated Bayesian analysis, Gonzàlez Riga dataset
Suggested synonymy with Bellusaurus |
1315_29 | In The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, a popular book with two editions published in 2010 and 2016, Paul has suggested that Klamelisaurus may have been be the adult form of Bellusaurus (known only from juvenile specimens). In 2018, Moore and colleagues redescribed Bellusaurus and provided several arguments to refute this notion. First, they noted that the two were not actually contemporaries; the holotype of Klamelisaurus originates from slightly older strata (rock layers). They also listed twenty-four characteristics in the vertebrae, coracoid, and humerus that differentiated the two genera. In their 2020 redescription of Klamelisaurus, they added four characteristics to this list, and also noted that Bellusaurus did not possess any of the unique features of Klamelisaurus. |
1315_30 | Most of the characteristics on their list pertain to differences in pneumatic features in the vertebrae of Klamelisaurus and Bellusaurus that are not readily explainable by differences in age. In sauropods, vertebral air spaces typically become more extensive and invade more of the vertebrae with age. Bellusaurus possessed procamerate to weakly camerate air spaces (i.e., its air spaces were deep, leaving only a thin layer of bone at the midline, and were barely enclosed by bone) in its cervicals. Meanwhile, based on comparisons with its relatives, Moore and colleagues inferred that Klamelisaurus likely had camerate air spaces (i.e., enclosed by bone) in its cervicals. Based on the cervicals alone, they could not contradict the hypothesis that juvenile Bellusaurus could have grown into an adult with camellate air spaces in the cervicals, as is the case with Barosaurus. However, they noted that Bellusaurus possessed several pneumatic features in the dorsal neural spines and that |
1315_31 | Klamelisaurus lacked, which runs contrary to the expected pattern for euhelopodids and mamenchisaurids. Specifically, in the dorsals of Bellusaurus, the PCDLs (posterior centrodiapophyseal laminae) below the diapophyses bifurcated at the bottom; the CPOLs (centropostzygapophyseal laminae) at the rear of the centra had a sharp-edged branch situated in a relatively deep depression; and the diapophyses bore rimmed trough-like depressions. |
1315_32 | Considering their temporal and anatomical differences, Moore and colleagues thus considered Klamelisaurus and Bellusaurus to be readily distinguishable. However, they also noted two characteristics on their list which may have varied with age: the bifurcated neural spines, and the presence of wing-shaped processes that projected further outwards than the postzygapophyses on the rear dorsals.
Palaeoenvironment |
1315_33 | The holotype of Klamelisaurus originated from a rock layer that was described as being "gray-brown, purple-red sandy mudstone" by Zhao in 1993. This layer was situated at the top of what Zhao called the "Wucaiwan Formation", but a lack of differences in rock layers has led it to become subsumed into the Shishugou Formation as the "lower beds" or the Wucaiwan Member. Using stratigraphic correlation, this rock layer was found to lie below a tuff from the Shishugou Formation at the Wucaiwan locality, which has been dated radiometrically to 162.2 ± 0.2 Ma, or the Oxfordian age of the Jurassic period. Based on this, Moore and colleagues considered Klamelisaurus to have originated from the late Callovian age. |
1315_34 | During the Callovian, the climate of the Shishugou Formation is considered to have been mesic (moderately and seasonally wet), with the environment at Wucaiwan having been an alluvial plain or marsh. Juliane Hinz and colleagues in 2010 reconstructed a petrified forest preserved in overlying Oxfordian rocks, located north of Jiangjunmiao. It would have consisted of Araucaria trees, with the undergrowth being occupied by Coniopteris tree ferns, Anglopteris and Osmunda ferns, Equisetites horsetails, and Elatocladus shrubs. |
1315_35 | Three theropod dinosaurs have been discovered near Jiangjunmiao: Monolophosaurus, considered to have been no younger than the late Callovian and thus closest temporally to Klamelisaurus; Aorun, from layers in the "middle beds" that have been re-dated from the Callovian to the Oxfordian; and Sinraptor, from the Oxfordian "upper beds". The crocodylomorphs Sunosuchus and Junggarsuchus are known from other localities in the "lower beds". Meanwhile, the sauropods Bellusaurus, Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum, and Tienshanosaurus are known from the "upper beds", above the level of the tuff at 162.2 Ma, and thus were not contemporaries of Klamelisaurus. Asides from these sauropods, Aorun, and Sinraptor, the Oxfordian portion of the Shishugou Formation preserves a diverse dinosaur fauna that also includes the theropods Haplocheirus, Shishugounykus, Zuolong, Guanlong, and Limusaurus; the ornithopod Gongbusaurus; the stegosaur Jiangjunosaurus; and the marginocephalians Yinlong and Hualianceratops. |
1315_36 | References
Sauropods
Middle Jurassic dinosaurs of Asia
Jurassic China
Biota of Xinjiang
Paleontology in Xinjiang
Taxa named by Zhao Xijin |
1316_0 | In gambling parlance, making a book is the practice of laying bets on the various possible outcomes of a single event. The phrase originates from the practice of recording such wagers in a hard-bound ledger (the 'book') and gives the English language the term bookmaker for the person laying the bets and thus 'making the book'.
Making a 'book' (and the notion of overround)
A bookmaker strives to accept bets on the outcome of an event in the right proportions in order to make a profit regardless of which outcome prevails. See Dutch book and coherence (philosophical gambling strategy). This is achieved primarily by adjusting what are determined to be the true odds of the various outcomes of an event in a downward fashion (i.e. the bookmaker will pay out using his actual odds, an amount which is less than the true odds would have paid, thus ensuring a profit). |
1316_1 | The odds quoted for a particular event may be fixed but are more likely to fluctuate in order to take account of the size of wagers placed by the bettors in the run-up to the actual event (e.g. a horse race). This article explains the mathematics of making a book in the (simpler) case of the former event. For the second method, see Parimutuel betting. |
1316_2 | It is important to understand the relationship between fractional and decimal odds. Fractional odds are those written a-b (a/b or a to b) mean a winning bettor will receive their money back plus a units for every b units they bet. Multiplying both a and b by the same number gives odds equivalent to a-b.
Decimal odds are a single value, greater than 1, representing the amount to be paid out for each unit bet.
For example, a bet of £40 at 6-4 (fractional odds) will pay out £40 + £60 = £100. The equivalent decimal odds are 2.5; £40 x 2.5 = £100. We can convert fractional to decimal odds by the formula D=. Hence, fractional odds of a-1 (ie. b=1) can be obtained from decimal odds by a=D-1. |
1316_3 | It is also important to understand the relationship between odds and implied probabilities:
Fractional odds of a-b (with corresponding decimal odds D) represent an implied probability of =, e.g. 6-4 corresponds to = = 0.4 (40%).
An implied probability of x is represented by fractional odds of (1-x)/x, e.g. 0.2 is (1-0.2)/0.2 = 0.8/0.2 = 4/1 (4-1, 4 to 1) (equivalently, - 1 to 1), and decimal odds of D=.
Example
In considering a football match (the event) that can be either a 'home win', 'draw' or 'away win' (the outcomes) then the following odds might be encountered to represent the true chance of each of the three outcomes:
Home: Evens
Draw: 2-1
Away: 5-1
These odds can be represented as implied probabilities (or percentages by multiplying by 100) as follows:
Evens (or 1-1) corresponds to an implied probability of (50%)
2-1 corresponds to an implied probability of (33%)
5-1 corresponds to an implied probability of (16%) |
1316_4 | By adding the percentages together a total 'book' of 100% is achieved (representing a fair book). The bookmaker, in his wish to avail himself of a profit, will invariably reduce these odds. Consider the simplest model of reducing, which uses a proportional decreasing of odds. For the above example, the following odds are in the same proportion with regard to their implied probabilities (3:2:1):
Home: 4-6
Draw: 6-4
Away: 4-1
4-6 corresponds to an implied probability of (60%)
6-4 corresponds to an implied probability of (40%)
4-1 corresponds to an implied probability of (20%)
By adding these percentages together a 'book' of 120% is achieved. |
1316_5 | The amount by which the actual 'book' exceeds 100% is known as the 'overround', 'bookmaker margin' or the 'vigorish' or 'vig': it represents the bookmaker's expected profit. Thus, in an "ideal" situation, if the bookmaker accepts £120 in bets at his own quoted odds in the correct proportion, he will pay out only £100 (including returned stakes) no matter what the actual outcome of the football match.
Examining how he potentially achieves this:
A stake of £60.00 @ 4-6 returns £100.00 (exactly) for a home win.
A stake of £40.00 @ 6-4 returns £100.00 (exactly) for a drawn match
A stake of £20.00 @ 4-1 returns £100.00 (exactly) for an away win
Total stakes received — £120.00 and a maximum payout of £100.00 irrespective of the result. This £20.00 profit represents a 16 % profit on turnover (20.00/120.00).
In reality, bookmakers use models of reducing that are more complicated than the model of the "ideal" situation. |
1316_6 | Bookmaker margin in English football leagues
Bookmaker margin in English football leagues decreased in recent years. The study of six large bookmakers between 2005/06 season and 2017/2018 season showed that average margin in Premier League decreased from 9% to 4%, in English Football League Championship, English Football League One, and English Football League Two from 11% to 6%, and in National League from 11% to 8%.
Overround on multiple bets
When a punter (bettor) combines more than one selection in, for example, a double, treble or accumulator then the effect of the overround in the book of each selection is compounded to the detriment of the punter in terms of the financial return compared to the true odds of all of the selections winning and thus resulting in a successful bet.
To explain the concept in the most basic of situations an example consisting of a double made up of selecting the winner from each of two tennis matches will be looked at: |
1316_7 | In Match 1 between players A and B both players are assessed to have an equal chance of winning. The situation is the same in Match 2 between players C and D. In a fair book in each of their matches, i.e. each has a book of 100%, all players would be offered at odds of Evens (1-1). However, a bookmaker would probably offer odds of 5-6 (for example) on each of the two possible outcomes in each event (each tennis match). This results in a book for each of the tennis matches of 109.09...%, calculated by 100 × ( + ) i.e. 9.09% overround. |
1316_8 | There are four possible outcomes from combining the results from both matches: the winning pair of players could be AC, AD, BC or BD. As each of the outcomes for this example has been deliberately chosen to ensure that they are equally likely it can be deduced that the probability of each outcome occurring is or 0.25 and that the fractional odds against each one occurring is 3-1. A bet of 100 units (for simplicity) on any of the four combinations would produce a return of 100 × (3/1 + 1) = 400 units if successful, reflecting decimal odds of 4.0. |
1316_9 | The decimal odds of a multiple bet is often calculated by multiplying the decimal odds of the individual bets, the idea being that if the events are independent then the implied probability should be the product of the implied probabilities of the individual bets. In the above case with fractional odds of 5-6, the decimal odds are . So the decimal odds of the double bet is ×=1.833...×1.833...=3.3611..., or fractional odds of 2.3611-1. This represents an implied probability of 29.752% (1/3.3611) and multiplying by 4 (for each of the four equally likely combinations of outcomes) gives a total book of 119.01%. Thus the overround has slightly more than doubled by combining two single bets into a double.
In general, the combined overround on a double (OD), expressed as a percentage, is calculated from the individual books B1 and B2, expressed as decimals, by OD = B1 × B2 × 100 − 100.
In the example we have OD = 1.0909 × 1.0909 × 100 − 100 = 19.01%. |
1316_10 | This massive increase in potential profit for the bookmaker (19% instead of 9% on an event; in this case the double) is the main reason why bookmakers pay bonuses for the successful selection of winners in multiple bets: compare offering a 25% bonus on the correct choice of four winners from four selections in a Yankee, for example, when the potential overround on a simple fourfold of races with individual books of 120% is over 107% (a book of 207%). This is why bookmakers offer bets such as Lucky 15, Lucky 31 and Lucky 63; offering double the odds for one winner and increasing percentage bonuses for two, three and more winners.
In general, for any accumulator bet from two to i selections, the combined percentage overround of books of B1, B2, ..., Bi given in terms of decimals, is calculated by B1 × B2 × ... × Bi × 100 − 100. E.g. the previously mentioned fourfold consisting of individual books of 120% (1.20) gives an overround of 1.20 × 1.20 × 1.20 × 1.20 × 100 − 100 = 107.36%. |
1316_11 | Settling winning bets |
1316_12 | In settling winning bets either decimal odds are used or one is added to the fractional odds: this is to include the stake in the return. The place part of each-way bets is calculated separately from the win part; the method is identical but the odds are reduced by whatever the place factor is for the particular event (see Accumulator below for detailed example). All bets are taken as 'win' bets unless 'each-way' is specifically stated. All show use of fractional odds: replace (fractional odds + 1) by decimal odds if decimal odds known. Non-runners are treated as winners with fractional odds of zero (decimal odds of 1). Fractions of pence in total winnings are invariably rounded down by bookmakers to the nearest penny below. Calculations below for multiple-bet wagers result in totals being shown for the separate categories (e.g. doubles, trebles etc.), and therefore overall returns may not be exactly the same as the amount received from using the computer software available to |
1316_13 | bookmakers to calculate total winnings. |
1316_14 | Singles
Win single
E.g. £100 single at 9-2; total staked = £100
Returns = £100 × (9/2 + 1) = £100 × 5.5 = £550
Each-way single
E.g. £100 each-way single at 11-4 ( odds a place); total staked = £200
Returns (win) = £100 × (11/4 + 1) = £100 × 3.75 = £375
Returns (place) = £100 × (11/20 + 1) = £100 × 1.55 = £155
Total returns if selection wins = £530; if only placed = £155
Multiple bets |
1316_15 | Each-Way multiple bets are usually settled using a default "Win to Win, Place to Place" method, meaning that the bet consists of a win accumulator and a separate place accumulator (Note: a double or treble is an accumulator with 2 or 3 selections respectively). However, a more uncommon way of settling these type of bets is "Each-Way all Each-Way" (known as "Equally Divided", which must normally be requested as such on the betting slip) in which the returns from one selection in the accumulator are split to form an equal-stake each-way bet on the next selection and so on until all selections have been used. The first example below shows the two different approaches to settling these types of bets.
Double
E.g. £100 each-way double with winners at 2-1 ( odds a place) and 5-4 ( odds a place); total staked = £200
Returns (win double) = £100 × (2/1 + 1) × (5/4 + 1) = £675
Returns (place double) = £100 × (2/5 + 1) × (5/16 + 1) = £183.75
Total returns = £858.75 |
1316_16 | Returns (first selection) = £100 × (2/1 + 1) + £100 × (2/5 + 1) = £440 which is split equally to give a £220 each-way bet on the second selection)
Returns (second selection) = £220 × (5/4 + 1) + £220 × (5/16 + 1) = £783.75
Total returns = £783.85
Note: "Win to Win, Place to Place" will always provide a greater return if all selections win, whereas "Each-Way all Each-Way" provides greater compensation if one selection is a loser as each of the other winners provide a greater amount of place money for subsequent selections.
Treble
E.g. £100 treble with winners at 3-1, 4-6 and 11-4; total staked = £100
Returns = £100 × (3/1 + 1) × (4/6 + 1) × (11/4 + 1) = £2500
Accumulator
E.g. £100 each-way fivefold accumulator with winners at Evens ( odds a place), 11-8 ( odds), 5-4 ( odds), 1-2 (all up to win) and 3-1 ( odds); total staked = £200 |
1316_17 | Note: 'All up to win' means there are insufficient participants in the event for place odds to be given (e.g. 4 or fewer runners in a horse race). The only 'place' therefore is first place, for which the win odds are given.
Returns (win fivefold) = £100 × (1/1 + 1) × (11/8 + 1) × (5/4 + 1) × (1/2 + 1) × (3/1 + 1) = £6412.50
Returns (place fivefold) = £100 × (1/4 + 1) × (11/40 + 1) × (5/16 + 1) × (1/2 + 1) × (3/5 + 1) = £502.03
Total returns = £6914.53
Full-cover bets
Trixie
Returns (3 doubles) = £10 × [(4/7 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) + (4/7 + 1) × (11/10 + 1) + (2/1 + 1) × (11/10 + 1)] = £143.14
Returns (1 treble) = £10 × (4/7 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) × (11/10 + 1) = £99.00
Total returns = £242.14
Yankee
Returns (6 doubles) = £10 × [(1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) + (5/2 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1)] = £314.16 |
1316_18 | Returns (4 trebles) = £10 × [(1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (1/3 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) + (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1)] = £451.66
Returns (1 fourfold) = £10 × (1/3 + 1) × (5/2 + 1) × (6/4 + 1) × (1/1 + 1) = £233.33
Total returns = £999.15
Trixie, Yankee, Canadian, Heinz, Super Heinz and Goliath form a family of bets known as full cover bets which have all possible multiples present. Examples of winning Trixie and Yankee bets have been shown above. The other named bets are calculated in a similar way by looking at all the possible combinations of selections in their multiples. Note: A Double may be thought of as a full cover bet with only two selections. |
1316_19 | Should a selection in one of these bets not win, then the remaining winners are treated as being a wholly successful bet on the next 'family member' down. For example, only two winners out of three in a Trixie means the bet is settled as a double; only four winners out of five in a Canadian means it is settled as a Yankee; only five winners out of eight in a Goliath means it is settled as a Canadian. The place part of each-way bets is calculated separately using reduced place odds. Thus, an each-way Super Heinz on seven horses with three winners and a further two placed horses is settled as a win Trixie and a place Canadian. Virtually all bookmakers use computer software for ease, speed and accuracy of calculation for the settling of multiples bets.
Full cover bets with singles
Patent
Returns (3 singles) = £2 × [(4/6 + 1) + (2/1 + 1) + (11/4 + 1)] = £16.83
Returns (3 doubles) = £2 × [(4/6 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) + (4/6 + 1) × (11/4 + 1) + (2/1 + 1) × (11/4 + 1)] = £45.00 |
1316_20 | Returns (1 treble) = £2 × (4/6 + 1) × (2/1 + 1) × (11/4 + 1) = £37.50
Total returns = £99.33
Patent, Lucky 15, Lucky 31, Lucky 63 and higher Lucky bets form a family of bets known as full cover bets with singles which have all possible multiples present together with single bets on all selections. An examples of a winning Patent bet has been shown above. The other named bets are calculated in a similar way by looking at all the possible combinations of selections in their multiples and singles. |
1316_21 | Should a selection in one of these bets not win, then the remaining winners are treated as being a wholly successful bet on the next 'family member' down. For example, only two winners out of three in a Patent means the bet is settled as a double and two singles; only three winners out of four in a Lucky 15 means it is settled as a Patent; only four winners out of six in a Lucky 63 means it is settled as a Lucky 15. The place part of each-way bets is calculated separately using reduced place odds. Thus, an each-way Lucky 63 on six horses with three winners and a further two placed horses is settled as a win Patent and a place Lucky 31.
Algebraic interpretation |
1316_22 | Returns on any bet may be considered to be calculated as 'stake unit' × 'odds multiplier'. The overall 'odds multiplier' is a combined decimal odds value and is the result of all the individual bets that make up a full cover bet, including singles if needed. E.g. if a successful £10 Yankee returned £461.35 then the overall 'odds multiplier' (OM) is 46.135.
If a, b, c, d... represent the decimal odds, i.e. (fractional odds + 1), then an OM can be calculated algebraically by multiplying the expressions (a + 1), (b + 1), (c + 1)... etc. together in the required manner and subtracting 1. If required, (decimal odds + 1) may be replaced by (fractional odds + 2). |
1316_23 | Examples
3 selections with decimal odds a, b and c.
Expanding (a + 1)(b + 1)(c + 1) algebraically gives abc + ab + ac + bc + a + b + c + 1. This is equivalent to the OM for a Patent (treble: abc; doubles: ab, ac and bc; singles: a, b and c) plus 1.
Therefore to calculate the returns for a winning Patent it is just a case of multiplying (a + 1), (b + 1) and (c + 1) together and subtracting 1 to get the OM for the winning bet, i.e. OM = (a + 1)(b + 1)(c + 1) − 1. Now multiply by the unit stake to get the total return on the bet.
E.g. The winning Patent described earlier can be more quickly and simply evaluated by the following:
Total returns = £2 × [(4/6 + 2) × (2/1 + 2) × (11/4 + 2) − 1] = £99.33
Ignoring any bonuses, a 50 pence each-way Lucky 63 (total stake £63) with 4 winners [2-1, 5-2, 7-2 (all odds a place) and 6-4 ( odds a place)] and a further placed horse [9-2 ( odds a place)] can be relatively easily calculated as follows: |
1316_24 | Returns (win part) = 0.50 × [(2/1 + 2) × (5/2 + 2) × (7/2 + 2) × (6/4 + 2) − 1] = £172.75
or more simply as 0.50 × (4 × 4.5 × 5.5 × 3.5 − 1)
Returns (place part) = 0.50 × [(2/5 + 2) × (5/10 + 2) × (7/10 + 2) × (6/16 + 2) × (9/10 + 2) − 1] = £11.79
or more simply as 0.50 × (2.4 × 2.5 × 2.7 × 2.375 × 2.9 − 1)
Total returns = £184.54
For the family of full cover bets that do not include singles an adjustment to the calculation is made to leave just the doubles, trebles and accumulators. Thus, a previously described winning £10 Yankee with winners at 1-3, 5-2, 6-4 and Evens has returns calculated by:
£10 × [(1/3 + 2) × (5/2 + 2) × (6/4 + 2) × (1/1 + 2) − 1 − [(1/3 + 1) + (5/2 + 1) + (6/4 + 1) + (1/1 + 1)]] = £999.16 |
1316_25 | In effect, the bet has been calculated as a Lucky 15 minus the singles. Note that the total returns value of £999.16 is a penny higher than the previously calculated value as this quicker method only involves rounding the final answer, and not rounding at each individual step.
In algebraic terms the OM for the Yankee bet is given by:
OM = (a + 1)(b + 1)(c + 1)(d + 1) − 1 − (a + b + c + d)
In the days before software became available for use by bookmakers and those settling bets in Licensed Betting Offices (LBOs) this method was virtually de rigueur for saving time and avoiding the multiple repetitious calculations necessary in settling bets of the full cover type.
Settling other types of winning bets
Up and down
Returns (£20 single at 7-2 ATC £20 single at 15-8) = £20 × 7/2 + £20 × (15/8 + 1) = £127.50
Returns (£20 single at 15-8 ATC £20 single at 7-2) = £20 × 15/8 + £20 × (7/2 + 1) = £127.50
Total returns = £255.00 |
1316_26 | Note: This is the same as two £20 single bets at twice the odds; i.e. £20 singles at 7-1 and 15-4 and is the preferred manual way of calculating the bet.
Returns (£10 single at 5-1 ATC £10 single on 'loser') = £10 × 5/1 = £50
Note: This calculation of a bet where the stake is not returned is called "receiving the odds to the stake" on the winner; in this case receiving the odds to £10 (on the 5-1 winner).
Round Robin
A Round Robin with 3 winners is calculated as a Trixie plus three Up and Down bets with 2 winners in each.
A Round Robin with 2 winners is calculated as a double plus one Up and Down bet with 2 winners plus two Up and Down bets with 1 winner in each.
A Round Robin with 1 winner is calculated as two Up and Down bets with one winner in each.
Flag and Super Flag bets may be calculated in a similar manner as above using the appropriate full cover bet (if sufficient winners) together with the required number of 2 winner- and 1 winner Up and Down bets. |
1316_27 | Note: Expert bet settlers before the introduction of bet-settling software would have invariably used an algebraic-type method together with a simple calculator to determine the return on a bet (see below).
Algebraic interpretation
If a, b, c, d... represent the decimal odds, i.e. (fractional odds + 1), then an 'odds multiplier' OM can be calculated algebraically by multiplying the expressions (a + 1), (b + 1), (c + 1)... etc. together in the required manner and adding or subtracting additional components. If required, (decimal odds + 1) may be replaced by (fractional odds + 2).
Examples
OM (2 winners) = (2a − 1) + (2b − 1) = 2(a + b − 1)
OM (1 winner) = a − 1 |
1316_28 | OM (3 winners) = (a + 1) × (b + 1) × (c + 1) − 1 − (a + b + c) + 2 × [(a + b − 1) + (a + c − 1) + (b + c − 1)] = (a + 1)(b + 1)(c + 1) + 3(a + b + c) − 7
OM (2 winners) = (a + 1) × (b + 1) − 1 − (a + b) + 2 × (a + b − 1) + (a − 1) + (b − 1) = (a + 1)(b + 1) + 2(a + b) − 5or more simply as OM = ab + 3(a + b) − 4
OM (1 winner) = 2 × (a − 1) = 2(a − 1)
OM (4 winners) = (a + 1) × (b + 1) × (c + 1) × (d + 1) − 1 − (a + b + c + d) + 2 × [(a + b − 1) + (a + c − 1) + (a + d − 1) + (b + c − 1) + (b + d − 1) + (c + d − 1)]= (a + 1)(b + 1)(c + 1)(d + 1) + 5(a + b + c + d) − 13
OM (3 winners) = (a + 1) × (b + 1) × (c + 1) − 1 − (a + b + c) + 2 × [(a + b − 1) + (a + c − 1) + (b + c − 1)] + (a − 1) + (b − 1) + (c − 1) = (a + 1)(b + 1)(c + 1) + 4(a + b + c) − 10
OM (2 winners) = (a + 1) × (b + 1) − 1 − (a + b) + 2 × (a + b − 1) + 2 × [(a − 1) + (b − 1)] = (a + 1)(b + 1) + 3(a + b) − 7or more simply as OM = ab + 4(a + b) − 6
OM (1 winner) = 3 × (a − 1) = 3(a − 1) |
1316_29 | See also
Statistical association football predictions
Glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers
Notes
References
. Definitive, and extensively revised and updated 3rd edition on the history, theory, practice and mathematics of bookmaking, plus the mathematics of off-course betting, bets and their computation and liability control. |
1316_30 | Further reading
"Finding an Edge", Ron Loftus, US-SC-North Charleston: Create Space., 2011, 144pp.
"How to make a book", Phil Bull, London: Morrison & Gibb Ltd., 1948, 160pp.
"The book on bookmaking", Ferde Rombola, California: Romford Press, 1984, 147pp. .
The Art of Bookmaking, Malcolm Boyle, High Stakes Publishing 2006.
Secrets of Successful Betting, Michael Adams, Raceform, 2002.
The Mathematics of Games and Gambling, Edward W. Packel, Mathematical Association of America, 2006.
The Mathematics of Gambling, Edward O. Thorp, L. Stuart, 1984.
"Maximin Hedges", Jean-Claude Derderian, Mathematics Magazine, volume 51, number 3. (May, 1978), pages 188–192.
"Carnap and de Finetti on Bets and the Probability of Singular Events: The Dutch Book Argument Reconsidered" Klaus Heilig, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, volume 29, number 4. (December, 1978), pages 325–346. |
1316_31 | "Tests of the Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Using Bookmaker Odds", Ron Bird, Michael McCrae, Management Science, volume 33, number 12 (December, 1987), pages 152–156.
"Why is There a Favourite-Longshot Bias in British Racetrack Betting Markets", Leighton Vaughan Williams, David Paton. The Economic Journal, volume 107, number 440 (January, 1997), pages 150–158.
Optimal Determination of Bookmakers' Betting Odds: Theory and Tests, by John Fingleton and Patrick Waldron, Trinity Economic Paper Series, Technical Paper No. 96/9, Trinity College, University of Dublin, 1999.
"Odds That Don't Add Up!", Mike Fletcher, Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 1994, volume 13, number 4, pages 145–147.
"Information, Prices and Efficiency in a Fixed-Odds Betting Market", Peter F. Pope, David A. Peel, Economica, New Series, volume 56, number 223, (August, 1989), pages 323–341. |
1316_32 | "A Mathematical Perspective on Gambling", Molly Maxwell, MIT Undergraduate Journal of Mathematics, volume 1, (1999), pages 123–132.
"Probability Guide to Gambling: The Mathematics of dice, slots, roulette, baccarat, blackjack, poker, lottery and sport bets", Catalin Barboianu, Infarom, 2006, 316pp. . |
1316_33 | Gambling mathematics
Wagering |
1317_0 | A post-detection policy (PDP), also known as a post-detection protocol, is a set of structured rules, standards, guidelines, or actions that governmental or other organizational entities plan to follow for the "detection, analysis, verification, announcement, and response to" confirmed signals from extraterrestrial civilizations. Though no PDPs have been formally and openly adopted by any governmental entity, there is significant work being done by scientists and nongovernmental organizations to develop cohesive plans of action to utilize in the event of detection. The most popular and well known of these is the "Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence", which was developed by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), with the support of the International Institute of Space Law. The theories of PDPs constitute a distinct area of research but draw heavily from the fields of SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial |
1317_1 | Intelligence), METI (Messaging to Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), and CETI (Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence). |
1317_2 | Scientist Zbigniew Paptrotny has argued that the formulation of post-detection protocols can be guided by three factors: terrestrial society's readiness to accept the news of ET detection, how the news of detection is released, and the comprehensibility of the message in the signal. These three broad areas and their related subsidiaries comprise the bulk of the content and discourse surrounding PDPs.
Issues |
1317_3 | Significance of transmission
There are two proposed scales for quantifying the significance of transmissions between Earth and potential extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). The Rio Scale, ranging from 0 to 10, was proposed in 2000 as a means of quantifying the significance of a SETI detection. The scale was designed by Iván Almár and Jill Tarter to help policy-makers formulate an initial judgment on a detection's potential consequences. The scale borrows heavily from the Torino Scale, which is used to categorize the hazard of impact of near-earth objects (NEOs). The IAA SETI Permanent Study Group officially adopted this scale both as a means of bringing perspective to claims of ETI detection and as an acknowledgement that even false ETI detections could have disastrous consequences, which should be mitigated. |
1317_4 | A closely related metric is the San Marino Scale for quantifying potential hazard of deliberate transmissions from Earth. While the Rio Scale rests on the relatively well-accepted science of the search for extraterrestrial signals (SETI), the San Marino scale seeks to bring objectivity to the reciprocal enterprise – that of human civilization sending transmissions that could be found by extraterrestrial civilizations (METI). The San Marino Scale was first proposed in 2005 and was adopted by the IAA SETI Permanent Study Group in September 2007. |
1317_5 | Nature of detection
Despite widespread belief, there is no empirical knowledge concerning extraterrestrial life forms and civilizations. The implications of a detection of extraterrestrial life would vary greatly depending on the nature of that life, its location, and how human society reacts. Because of this lack of certainty, PDPs consider a variety of scenarios and the appropriate reactions. The formulation of a cohesive plan for a response to the detection of ETI would involve the development of scenario-contingent strategies for managing the discovery and its consequences. |
1317_6 | Some scenarios have received more attention than have others. For example, while a sizable amount of work has been done to predict the consequences of a radio telescope detection of ETI elsewhere in our galaxy, very little such effort has been used to identify the consequences of discovering single-celled life forms elsewhere in the Solar System. Confirmation of such fossilized or living organisms on a nearby planet or moon could still have acute effects on individuals’ world-views and raise many ethical and practical issues.
Cultural and political considerations |
1317_7 | Regardless of the nature of a confirmed detection, PDPs also place considerable emphasis on the range of likely reactions from different constituencies, including the press, various religious groups, political leaders, and the general public. The differences in reactions across the range of cultural and religious boundaries would be substantial. One possible strategy for development of more comprehensive PDPs is to undertake carefully planned cross-cultural polls and other empirical studies based on analogues in the humanities and history, the social and behavioral sciences, and even science fiction to determine likely reactions. Shortly after a confirmed detection, the timely application of relevant interdisciplinary data is likely to prove invaluable in implementing the appropriate policy as well as in the delivery of educational and public relations initiatives particular to the situation at hand. Another potential strategy is to explore the capacity of religion as a "resource to |
1317_8 | absorb the impact of discovery and to maintain beneficial relations with ETI." |
1317_9 | PDPs also attempt to take into account the political aftermath of a detection and the ways in which both governmental and nongovernmental entities might use information. As Michael Michaud states, "We cannot assume that SETI is immune from the ancient motivations of egoism, power, and greed. Decisions that could affect the welfare of the human species might be made by small, non-representative elites." |
1317_10 | Once detection becomes public, decision-makers would exert influence by the way they evaluate the importance and handle the publicity of the discovery. It is possible that such actors would emphasize or minimize its importance to extract political advantage. The contact could be framed as a positive development that will benefit the nation and humankind. Likewise, it could be used to warn of potential dangers and provoke public anxieties. Each course of action would have profound effects on how the press and the general public react. Michaud posits that the more decipherable the information received from contact with ETI, the higher a chance there is for political reaction against alien cultural influences. Extremist groups, both religious and secular, could weigh in, attacking information from ETI as evil or immoral. It is possible that this would spark attempts to terminate communication by interfering with the signal or targeting the detecting technology with attacks. Albert |
1317_11 | Harrison has written that it would be "foolish and negligent" to fail to anticipate such reactions in the formulation of policies and plans. |
1317_12 | Information sharing
Following a confirmed detection, another important variable considered in a PDP is the speed with which the facts of the discovery would become public knowledge. For instance, should a signal of ET origin be sufficiently ambiguous or otherwise difficult to interpret, the detecting party may perceive a need to withhold information about the discovery to prevent unintended reactions from the general public or other political entities. Likewise, the detecting party could choose to limit information release in a bid to exploit the contact for personal gain. |
1317_13 | At the international level, the PDP of a national government entity would have the force of law to prevent, delay, or limit the release of information – especially if the detection is made by persons working for that agency or under government contract. This sort of information restriction scenario is more likely under circumstances in which the detecting party was the only holder of the technological capabilities required to communicate. The subsequent disclosure of those decisions could provoke international distrust, encouraging other nations to act unilaterally in their communication with ETI.
Signal comprehensibility and content |
1317_14 | Depending on the nature of the first detection, policy- or decision-makers might have the opportunity to make a conscious decision about composing and sending a message. The ambiguity and content of signals sent both to and from Earth would have profound implications for what actions needed to be taken. A PDP that did not take signal comprehensibility into account would not be flexible enough to inform appropriate action. The area of SETI research known as CETI (Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence), is concerned with how humankind should carry out this communication and, to some extent, representation problems such as whether a response should be with one collective voice or if anyone with access to a transmitter should have the right to communicate. |
1317_15 | The purpose and content of a response is also an issue that PDPs seek to make explicit. There is considerable disagreement as to how to effectively communicate meaning and intent across what would likely be formidable language barriers. The message would need to be crafted in such a way that its content and delivery were unambiguous to receivers that may not even use written or verbal communication. Several mathematic, pictorial, algorithmic, and "natural" language theories have been developed and applied to the problem of CETI. A specific purpose or goal of outgoing transmissions may be covered by a PDP as well. Several possible functions exist, including: a description of our species and planet, a request for information, and/or the proposition of some course of action. However, in the absence of an intergovernmental agreement or structures for building consensus on the subject, nations, groups, businesses and individuals are free to act autonomously. It is precisely because the |
1317_16 | process of sculpting a collective message would be slow and laborious (but intensely important), that most scientists recommend having a PDP with some prescribed action laid out before contact is made. |
1317_17 | Relative technological capabilities |
1317_18 | In considering post-detection courses of action, it is also useful to consider the relative technological capabilities both in relation to signal relay time and in relation to whether or not the ETI is thought to pose a militaristic threat. If the ETI in question is transmitting from outside the Solar System, there will be a significant lag in time between transmission and receipt by either party. The relative sophistication of the communication technology available to each party would play heavily into the feasibility of certain types and content of messaging. In a similar vein, the potential disparities in sophistication of weapons technology hold grave implications for how humankind should react to ETI. Due to the perceived risk of revealing the precise location of the Earth to alien civilizations, METI has been heavily criticized as irresponsible considering the lack of information available about any real or potential ETI threat. Even in the likely scenario that accurate |
1317_19 | locational coordinates of Earth were available, there is question as to whether humankind should reveal anything more about itself that could be a boon to hostile ETI. Notable among the critics of METI were the (late) British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and includes science fiction author David Brin. |
1317_20 | Adopted and proposed PDPs
The Brookings Report |
1317_21 | "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs," often referred to as "the Brookings Report," was a 1960 report commissioned by NASA and created by the Brookings Institution in collaboration with NASA's Committee on Long-Range Studies. In a section titled, "The implications of a discovery of extraterrestrial life," the report considers possible post-detection scenarios and gives recommendations. Aimed at the political leadership that would be in a decision-making role immediately following a confirmed detection, it describes, among other things, the circumstances under which it may or may not be advisable to withhold such information from the public. The significance of this relatively small section of the report is a matter of controversy. As more of an analysis of fallout and pertinent considerations than an explicit PDP, the report does not specifically recommend a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life. This possibility, however, is the |
1317_22 | context in which the Brookings report is often cited by ufologists and conspiracy theorists. |
1317_23 | IAA SETI Declaration of Principles
The IAA, in an attempt to draw up universal guidelines on the immediate steps to be taken by the group or individual that makes a discovery, drafted the "Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence". The document has been endorsed by six international professional space societies and also constitutes an informal agreement among most of those carrying out SETI.
The declaration proposes a set of nine post-detection protocols, listed below.
International consultations should be initiated to consider the question of sending communications to extraterrestrial civilizations. |
1317_24 | Consultations on whether a message should be sent, and its content, should take place within the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space of the United Nations and within other governmental and non-governmental organizations, and should accommodate participation by qualified, interested groups that can contribute constructively to these consultations.
These consultations should be open to participation by all interested States and should be intended to lead to recommendations reflecting a consensus.
The United Nations General Assembly should consider making the decision on whether or not to send a message to extraterrestrial intelligence, and on what the content of that message should be, based on recommendations from the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and from governmental and non-governmental organizations.
If a decision is made to send a message to extraterrestrial intelligence, it should be sent on behalf of all Humankind, rather than from individual States. |
1317_25 | The content of such a message should reflect a careful concern for the broad interests and wellbeing of Humanity, and should be made available to the public in advance of transmission.
As the sending of a communication to extraterrestrial intelligence could lead to an exchange of communications separated by many years, consideration should be given to a long-term institutional framework for such communications.
No communication to extraterrestrial intelligence should be sent by any State until appropriate international consultations have taken place. States should not cooperate with attempts to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligence that do not conform to the principles of this Declaration.
In their deliberations on these questions, States participating in this Declaration and United Nations bodies should draw on the expertise of scientists, scholars, and other persons with relevant knowledge. |
1317_26 | The document does not carry the force of law or any other regulatory power. Hence it can be ignored by public or private institutions should they choose to, without legal repercussions.
See also
Human presence in space
Global governance, international policy and/or cooperation for policies which are implemented in parallel and/or interdependently globally
References
Extraterrestrial life |
1318_0 | Gwoyeu Romatzyh (), abbreviated GR, is a system for writing Mandarin Chinese in the Latin alphabet. The system was conceived by Yuen Ren Chao and developed by a group of linguists including Chao and Lin Yutang from 1925 to 1926. Chao himself later published influential works in linguistics using GR. In addition a small number of other textbooks and dictionaries in GR were published in Hong Kong and overseas from 1942 to 2000. |
1318_1 | GR is the better known of the two romanization systems which indicate the four tones of Mandarin by varying the spelling of syllables ("tonal spelling"). These tones are as fundamental to the Chinese language as vowels are to English; their presence lets speakers discriminate between otherwise identical syllables and words. Other systems indicate the tones with either diacritics (for example Pinyin: āi, ái, ǎi and ài) or numbers (Wade–Giles: ai1, ai2, etc.). GR spells the four tones of the same vowel, ai, air, ae and ay. These spellings, which follow specific rules, indicate the tones while retaining the pronunciation of the syllable ai. |
1318_2 | Chao claimed that, because GR embeds the tone of each syllable in its spelling, it may help students to master Chinese tones. One study of GR, however, comparing students' ability to dictate a romanized text in GR versus pinyin, found that the use of GR resulted in slightly lower accuracy in tonal production. GR uses a complicated system of tonal spelling that obscures the basic relationship between spelling and tone; for example, the difference between tones 1 and 2 is variously indicated as mha vs. ma, ching vs. chyng, chang vs. charng, etc. Although tonal spelling has been adopted as part of the normal romanization of a number of Asian languages (e.g. Hmong), all such systems indicate different tones in a simple and consistent fashion by adding letters to the end of a syllable (e.g. in Hmong, -b indicates high tone, -s indicates low tone, -j indicates high-falling tone, etc.). |
1318_3 | In September 1928, China adopted GR as the nation's official romanization system. GR was used to indicate pronunciations in dictionaries of the National (Mandarin-based) Language. Its proponents hoped one day to establish it as a writing system for a reformed Chinese script. But despite support from a small number of trained linguists in China and overseas, GR met with public indifference and even hostility due to its complexity. Another obstacle preventing its widespread adoption was its narrow basis on the Beijing dialect, in a period lacking a strong centralized government to enforce its use. Eventually GR lost ground to Pinyin and other later romanization systems. However, its influence is still evident, as several of the principles introduced by its creators have been used in romanization systems that followed it. Its pattern of tone spelling was retained in the standard spelling of the Chinese province of Shaanxi (shǎnxī, 陕西), which cannot be distinguished from Shanxi (shānxī, |
1318_4 | 山西) when written in pinyin without diacritics. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.