Zugl.: Würzburg, Universiẗat, Diss., 1989/90.

Fizemos uma apresentação detalhada, com um enfoque geométrico, da Teoria de Homotopia Simples e como aplicação, uma análise detalhada da classificação por homotopia e homotopia simples dos Espaços Lenticulares / We made a detailed presentation, with a geometric approach, of Simple Homotopy Theory and as a major application we present a detailed analysis of homotopy and simple homotopy classification of Lens Spaces

The goal of this paper is to find the Homfly polynomial for each knot in a specific family of knots. This family of knots is generated from placing the Whitehead link into a solid torus, slicing the torus at a spot where the Whitehead has no crossings and then twisting the torus 360 degrees in either direction an integral number of times. Let L(n) denote the knot obtained by twisting the torus 360 degrees, n times. Note that n is an integer. Let the twists be towards the center of the torus for positive n and away from the center for negative n. Through the obtained Homfly polynomials, it will be determined that each of the knots in this family are distinct and non-trivial (excepting the Whitehead link).

<p>In this dissertation I examine some possible areas in which Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Alfred North Whitehead share similar interpretations of the nature of the cosmos and the nature of God. Further, I seek to illustrate areas of their cosmological-theistic interpretations where they offer distinctive views.</p> <p>Several recent authors have made references to apparent similarities between specific areas contained in the writings of Whitehead and Teilhard. For the most part these references are made somewhat in passing and are, therefore, undeveloped. </p> <p>However, two articles by Ian Barbour deal at some length with a comparison of Whitehead and Teilhard. The first "Five Ways of Reading Teilhard," (in The Teilhard Review, III (1968) 1, 3-20) is an attempt to show ". . . . that Teilhard's most significant intellectual contribution is a 'process theology' which combines Christian theology and process philosophy." The second article, "Teilhard's Process Metaphysics," (Journal of Religion, 49 (1969) 2, 136-159) is an exploration of "some of Teilhard's metaphysical categories which reflect both evolutionary and biblical assumptions." While each of these articles is a clear interpretation of Teilhard's thought and of significant value for anyone interested in comparing Whitehead and Teilhard, nevertheless, they tend to describe Teilhard as closely allied to the general scheme of Whitehead's 'process' philosophy. While I agree with Dr. Barbour on many of his points, I am led to challenge an interpretation which too closely allies Whitehead and Teilhard. Therefore, while a number of authors have suggested some similarities between Whitehead and Teilhard, no one (to my knowledge) has presented a developed comparison of their thoughts. Among the many possible areas for comparison, I have chosen to concentrate on two; namely, their respective interpretations of the structure and activity of the cosmos and their respective interpretations of the nature and activity of God. While noting several similarities between the thoughts of these two thinkers, I have been led to conclude that their distinctive interpretations are of greater importance. Briefly, I maintain in this study that each describes the universe as having a different structure and guided by God described as having a different nature and function.</p> <p>Hopefully, this dissertation will have scholarly significance not only because of its 'pioneer' quality, i.e., because it raises issues others might wish to challenge and pursue further, but also, because of its concentration on specific pivotal issues, this dissertation might be useful to those suspecting some alliance of these two systems with one another.</p> STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT <p>In Chapter One, I seek to organize Teilhard's cosmological ideas. In Chapter Two, I consider Whitehead's cosmological categories and present a preliminary comparison between his cosmology and that of Teilhard.Next, in Chapter Three I turn my attention to Teilhard's 'theism,' examining what his cosmological proposals lead him to say regarding the existence of God. Also, within this chapter, I take note of the 'theological' interpretation of God which Teilhard appears to incorporate into his system. In Chapter Four, I turn my attention to Whitehead's 'theism,' noting his discussion of God's existence and activity relative to the cosmos. Also, in this chapter I offer a preliminary comparison of the 'theisms' of Teilhard and Whitehead. Next, in Chapter Five, I consider, in summary, the principle areas in which Teilhard and Whitehead agree and, specifically, where their interpretations differ. The latter portion of this chapter is devoted to what might be a central critique of Teilhard's scheme from a Whiteheadian point of view. Finally, in an Appendix I consider Teilhard's "Christology," asking whether his interpretation of Christ provides a theme indicating that Teilhard's God is mutable(i.e., passive) and asking, further, whether Teilhard's interpretation of Christ revises the cosmological issues of irreversibility and infallibility I found so prominent in Teilhard's system.</p> / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Zugl.: Dortmund, Univ., Diss., 2006

This thesis considers outdoor education as a pedagogical approach which enables students to explore the natural world and learn its value when guided by an adult, be they teacher or community member. In order to provide a full account of this distinctive pedagogy, the thesis critically examines three approaches to outdoor education: a discipline-based approach used in a course on phenology at Capital Normal University in Beijing; a multidisciplinary approach currently utilized at the Outdoor School in Saskatoon; and a place-based approach as exemplified in the CO-SEED project (Community-Based School Environmental Education project) in the United States. The theoretical framework used throughout the thesis is the philosophy of education of Alfred North Whitehead coupled with concepts from his philosophy of organism. It is within this framework that each approach is interpreted and its strengths and weaknesses explained.<p> Based on consideration of the three examples and on an analysis of the literature concerning outdoor education, I argue that outdoor education is not fully recognized by educators as a way for students to learn to appreciate their connection with nature. The educational value of outdoor education has yet to be acknowledged, and as a result students with little or no regular outdoor experience tend to feel alienated from nature, and are losing any sense of connectedness and rootedness to the places where they live. By way of contrast, outdoor education has the potential to restore students appreciation of nature.<p> I propose that a place-based approach to outdoor education is the most inclusive and adequate of the three approaches. At the same time, this approach would benefit from a full understanding and integration of Whiteheads key concepts of the rhythmic cycles of growth, internal relations, wisdom, value, and the art of life. Together they would strengthen place-based education, making it an effective approach to outdoor education.

This thesis considers outdoor education as a pedagogical approach which enables students to explore the natural world and learn its value when guided by an adult, be they teacher or community member. In order to provide a full account of this distinctive pedagogy, the thesis critically examines three approaches to outdoor education: a discipline-based approach used in a course on phenology at Capital Normal University in Beijing; a multidisciplinary approach currently utilized at the Outdoor School in Saskatoon; and a place-based approach as exemplified in the CO-SEED project (Community-Based School Environmental Education project) in the United States. The theoretical framework used throughout the thesis is the philosophy of education of Alfred North Whitehead coupled with concepts from his philosophy of organism. It is within this framework that each approach is interpreted and its strengths and weaknesses explained.<p> Based on consideration of the three examples and on an analysis of the literature concerning outdoor education, I argue that outdoor education is not fully recognized by educators as a way for students to learn to appreciate their connection with nature. The educational value of outdoor education has yet to be acknowledged, and as a result students with little or no regular outdoor experience tend to feel alienated from nature, and are losing any sense of connectedness and rootedness to the places where they live. By way of contrast, outdoor education has the potential to restore students appreciation of nature.<p> I propose that a place-based approach to outdoor education is the most inclusive and adequate of the three approaches. At the same time, this approach would benefit from a full understanding and integration of Whiteheads key concepts of the rhythmic cycles of growth, internal relations, wisdom, value, and the art of life. Together they would strengthen place-based education, making it an effective approach to outdoor education.

In this thesis, I consider the problem of relating science and religion, and search for a solution that will provide a useful model both for individual believers as well as professional scientists and theologians. In this search, I take up the works of three of the most influential thinkers to write on the subject: Andrew Dickson White, Alfred North Whitehead, and Ian G. Barbour. I survey each of their texts and evaluate the philosophy of science and religion that they present. In the end, I conclude that the version of process philosophy adopted by Ian Barbour offers the most promising solution to the problem of relating science and religion.

This dissertation concerns the study of canonical components of the SL(2, C) character varieties of hyperbolic 3-manifolds. Although character varieties have proven to be a useful tool in studying hyperbolic 3-manifolds, very little is known about their structure. Chapter 1 provides background on this subject. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the canonical component of the Whitehead link. We provide a projective model and show that this model is isomorphic to P^2 blown up at 10 points. The Whitehead link can be realized as 1/1 Dehn surgery on one cusp of both the Borromean rings and the 3-chain link. In Chapter 3 we examine the canonical components for the two families of hyperbolic link complements obtained by 1/n Dehn filling on one component of both the Borromean rings and the 3-chain link. These examples extend the work of Macasieb, Petersen and van Luijk who have studied the character varieties associated to the twist knot complements. We conjecture that the canonical components for the links obtained by 1/n Dehn filling on one component of the 3-chain link are all rational surfaces isomorphic to P^2 blown up at 9n + 1 points. A major goal is to understand how the algebro-geometric structure of these varieties reflects the topological structure of the associated manifolds. At the end of Chapter 3 we discuss common features of these examples and explain how our results lend insight into the affect Dehn surgery has on the character variety. We conclude, in Chapter 4, with a description of possible directions for future research. / text

Zugl.: Passau, Univ., Diss., 2005