We left there questions or issues to be solved. So no point in asking because you never answered. Okay. So if you remember what we were talking about last time, this is like a power series which are of the form of some constant coefficient, let me call it a spoon, something like that. Or maybe it's like an infinitely long polynomial. The polynomial has infinite degree. We have a constant term which could be zero. We have a linear term, could be zero. We have quadratic term, given term, and so on. Maybe it's been shifted by some translation. So instead of being x minus the center could be something like that. Okay? So we have, so these give us some kind of, so in some sense this is a series where the series depends on a variable but in another sense it's a kind of a function if it converges. Right? So it's two different ways of looking at the same thing. So let me do I guess over an example. So these might, so there's three possibilities. Either it converges to zero, there's sort of no point to such a series but I could give you something that slopes up really fast and will only converge it actually to zero. Or it converges on some interval between about x minus c less than some radius and maybe this is less than or equal to, maybe it's not a little fancy, whatever. Or it converges whatever, so this R is called the radius of convergence, the interval might include one or both end points, it might not so you have to check that separately, okay? And it's possible that c is zero. So I guess this case is just R and c, radius. It's called a radius rather than a width or I have to width because in fact if x is a complex number then this is an actual circle. So these make perfect sense for complex numbers which we'll deal with later in the course but when these are complex numbers this is an actual radius because it's a circle or a disk on which this converges. But in our case we're only talking about intervals because you know the circle in line, you guys are waiting very, very long for that. So maybe I should do an example or two and maybe I should show them in front of my, okay? So say we have, say we have something like and it doesn't really matter what end starts at in terms of where does it converge because we don't really care about what it does at the end but for definite miss let's just start it at zero, say I have something like minus x, well actually let's absorb that. Let's say I have 2x minus 1 to the end, 5 to the end. So there's a series for example and we want to know for what x, so what is, again I want to emphasize that this is defining a function and we want to know where does this function make sense. This is also defining, if you want to look at it one way, it's defining a function of x which only makes sense possibly for certain values of x, it doesn't make sense for others. Or you can look at it as a whole bunch of series, either way, it's the same question. So here we go, yes the ratio test is a good idea. So I start with the ratio test which means that I want to know what happens as n goes to infinity of the n plus first term divided by the nth term and I'm going to write it this way. So the n plus first term, unfortunately I've used a here, oh well, sorry, this a is not valid. So we want to take the limit, I need to do a little more room, right limit, when we change n to n plus one and divide by what happens when we divide by that, so I can put n to the end there, 2x minus 1 to the end there. And then I use some algebra to simplify this thing. So this 2x minus 1 to the n plus 1 divided by that guy leaving me just the 2x minus 1 on the top, still need to take the limit. So I take care of that, the 5 to the n, 5 to the n plus 1 on the bottom divides the 5 to the n on the top, giving me a 5 here, the n plus 1 here divides that and nothing cancels and then I take the limit. So in the limit, 2x minus 1 over 5 has no n's in it so that doesn't change and this limit is 1. So that's easy, so that tells me that 2x minus 1 over 5 is my ratio, the limit of my ratio. So for very large n, this looks like 2x minus 1 over 5. No, sorry, this over the next one looks like 2x minus 1 over 5, we go down by this factor every time. So this will converge if this ratio is less than 1. So this will be less than 1 exactly when 2x minus 1 absolute value is less than 5, which is the same thing as saying 2x minus 1 is between 5 and minus 5 and I'm going to put this up just a little bit. No, I guess I know, I'm going to the next board. So 2x minus 1 is between plus or minus 5. You can sort of read off the answer from this. Well, let me do it again. It's not absolute, it's going to be absolute out. So I add 1 to both sides and now I divide it by 2. So for sure, this series will converge absolutely when x is between minus 2 and 3. The question is, so and it diverges when x is bigger than 3 and when x is less than minus 2. But we want to know what happens if x equals 3 or x equals minus 2 because in that case, this ratio will be 1. So we have to handle those separately. Is it clear to everyone why I have to do this? So we handle those two things separately. When x is say 3, the series becomes, let's do x equals 3 here, when x equals 3, the series becomes 6 minus 1 to the end and x equals 5 over n times 5 to the end. We have to write this as 6 minus 1 and so this handles that and this diverges because it's far from on first the series with b equals 1. x equals minus 2 and the series becomes minus 4, minus 1, which is minus 5 to the end. Maybe I should write it that way, minus 4 to the end. Lastly, there's a little problem here anyway when n equals 0, this thing blows up. So maybe it should start at 1. So again, this is minus 5 to the end over 5 to the end because we have minus 1 to the end, which is an alternating series. It's decreasing, the limit, and n goes from infinity to 1 over n, it's 0, so it's 2. That means that the interval of convergence looks wrong. The interval of the convergence does not include 3, but it does include minus 2, almost always, but not always. One end will be an alternating series and the other one won't, the reason it's not always is maybe if the power of x is even, so instead of having an n here and a 2n, something like that, then it won't be an alternating series. You square or not just 1, you get 1. Right? Is that clear? So this is fairly straightforward, fairly mechanical. Just go through the ratio test and you check both ends and there you go. Not a lot of deep thought involved here, just a lot of manipulation. Any questions on how to do this kind of thing? Of course, they can be a little more complicated, maybe the series needs to do the interval test to check one of the ends or something a little more complicated, but the idea is always the same. Due to the ratio test, you solve the resulting inequality then you check the two series that correspond to the end and you get an n. You guys are very blunt. So if there's no questions on these, let me move along. Is it clear? Okay. So, there are a couple of power series, well, we can just start with 1. There's a couple of power series that we know what they add up to. So if I take the most simple power series where all the coefficients are 1, this is the geometric series with the ratio x. And so, in fact, we know that this adds up to minus x, when x is less than 1. If x equals 1, you can check for the diverges in both cases.   But for x less than 1, this series equals that function. So, we know, we know exactly, and it's important now because we're adding it up that we know where it starts. It still converges if we start here at x to the 10th, but it doesn't converge to this. So, in fact, let's ask that. What is the sum of x to the n that starts at x to the 10th? Is some function we know, what function is it? Hint, I'm not going to tell you. Is the geometric series, what's the ratio? The ratio is x, but a, the a in the geometric series is not 1. This guy is a geometric series with ratio x. So, remember, a geometric series in general, I need a place to write. So, a general geometric series looks like this, right? This is the sum, well, in this case, this guy, this guy is a geometric series with ratio 1 and a 1. This guy is also with ratio x and a equals 1. This guy is also a geometric series, but it's a ratio 1. Somebody said x, and what's the first term? x to the 10th. So, this sum is x to the 10th over 1 minus x. You can see that in two ways. One way, you can see this is a geometric series with ratio x and a factor x to the 10. You can also see that this is the same, we write it here. This is the same as I can factor the x to the 10th out if the other series I already have. Yeah. If it's a geometric series starting at zero, yeah. Because a, so a geometric series is always, let's go back to this one, geometric series looks like if we're starting at n equals zero, something like that. This is r to the zero and r to the 1. So, if we start index at zero, then of course a is the first term. Sometimes it looks a little funny, but yeah. So, if I change this index to a 3, then it's not a geometric series starting at zero. We have to fiddle it. So, either you can factor out the a, r, q or r. I do a lot. I'm going to erase this. So, people okay with this? Are people a little bit, anything on geometric series still? He is. She's not. You're in between anything and not. I can't. I mean, if you have a question, I'm happy to answer it. But if you are so lost that you can't formulate the question, it makes life a lot harder for people to understand. Oh, okay. So, we have this. So, today is really geometric series day, but hiding in the context of power series. So, suppose I had, instead of that, something that looked like, well, let me not write it as a sum. Suppose I have a polynomial that looked like x square plus x to the 4 plus x to the 6. Let's start it. Let's not start it. Plus x to the 8, like that. Can we figure out what this sounds up to? Hint? Yes. Again, it's a geometric series. May not quite look like a geometric series, but it is. What's the ratio? X square. X square. What's A? What's the leading term? X square. X square. So, what's the sum? Not very hard. So, again, it's just a geometric series. We can write this as a geometric series. We can write it either n equals 2, n equals 1 to infinity, to the x to the 2n. This doesn't look quite like a geometric series the way it's written, but if you think of this x to the 2n as x square to the n, and then I want to factor out the first x square because this begins it. So, again, it's the same manipulation that's all along. So, we can plug in things here and get new series, but we can shift it. Use one very similar to the one I just did a while ago, but not exactly to say, okay, so suppose I want this gup, I'm not going to put the factor of n in. So, it's almost that one, but not quite because I'm not putting in the factor of n. How can I turn this into something that looks like that? So, I rewrite this, and now it's a geometric series in the same old, same old. So, this is 1 plus 2x minus 1 over 5 plus 2x minus 1 over 5 squared plus blah, blah, blah, which sums to, we can actually add this up now because it's a geometric series, the leading term here is 1, so it's 1 over 1 minus that. Now, this is, you know, you could do a little algebra to make it purdier, so I'm going to multiply by 5 top and bottom. This is 5 and 6 minus 2x. Yeah, I'm sorry, why did I put a limit on it? Oh, I should, this doesn't make any sense if this is not true. Well, if this does not converge, yeah, that's a 1. It's a special way to write 1. I need this. I mean, it still is a formula. It's just that the formula is not defined. Yeah, if that's greater than 1, it doesn't add up. If x is 3, then this does not sum to what I come up with. So, you know, often we don't write this until we're ready to use it. Here, I'm just, so just like when you write tangent of x, you don't usually write x not equal to 5 over 2, 3 pi over 2, blah, blah, blah, because the domain is implicit or when I write a square root of x minus 1, again, I don't say where x is less than 1 because it doesn't, you know, doesn't make sense of it, I'm sorry, where x is greater than 1 because I know from the formula that it doesn't make sense when x is less than 1. So, the same thing here. This is here, this is implicit in the writing of this if you know about series. So, sometimes you write this, sometimes you don't. Is this clear? Is it, number one was his objection clear?  So, it was a good point, it's just something we usually leave off because we know we can figure it out when we need to know what it is. But if I just blindly start using this for x equals 7, I'm going to get very strange answers. Okay, so, this function is just another way to write this function. But on the domain, so what is this? This is, let me just write it this way, on this domain. This equality only holds on this domain. This one holds on a bigger set of values. This one blows up when x is 3. This one also blows up when x is 3, but it also blows up a lot of other times. So, in some sense, in some sense, these power series are more restricted because we have functions which are defined on much larger domains when we write them this way, then they are in terms of series. And we will see in a little while that they're still useful on the domains where they're defined. Right now, it just seems like we're writing stuff we already know in another way. And we won't get past that until after these. So, one thing that we've done here in order to manipulate these series into new series, I guess let me do one other one. Obviously, if I have an alternate like that, which is the sum of 0 and infinity minus 1, what's this series have? Yeah? Yes? Yes? Let me write it this way just to emphasize. So, if the thing alternates in sign, it's still a heightened geometric series. In fact, a lot of these power series are really just geometric series in a hidden format. There are other ones that we will manipulate, but for today, almost everything we're doing is some kind of geometric series in a hidden form. So, what we've done so far is multiply these series by some terms like this, sorry, like this. Or make a substitution x to the 2n, I mean x, replace the x with an x squared or the minus x or something like that.  We can also manipulate them further. Suppose I have something like, suppose I have something like, so instead of giving you a series and having to guess what it is, let's start with a series we know and see and derive something new. So, suppose I start with this one, yeah, not writing what I'm thinking of, but I start with this guy and I decide to take the derivative of each term and I'll get something slightly different. So, derivative of 1 is 0, derivative of x, x is 1, derivative of x squared is 2x, derivative of x cubed is 3x squared, derivative of x to the 4th is 4x cubed, et cetera. In fact, let me write the other representation in the middle here. So, if I take the derivatives, in general, I have nx to the n minus 1 for n equal to 1 to infinity, the general term is nx to the n minus 1, but that should equal the derivative of this. So, the derivative of this is 1 over 1 minus x squared times, minus, at the minus 1, right, the derivative of 1 over 1 minus x is 1 minus x to the power minus 1, so I get minus 1 minus x to the power minus 2 times the derivative of minus x. So, now, we actually have another power series sitting here that we know how to add up. We could shift this one a little bit. This is the same, if we want to start at 0, then this n is this n, did I get that right? Something's wrong here, yeah. The limit of the term, not if it's less than 1, again, this only makes sense when the absolute value of x is less than 1. If x is bigger than 1, this is all garbage. So, when x makes, when this sum makes sense, this stuff is okay. When the sum doesn't make sense, it's nonsense. Because you're adding infinities and taking derivatives of infinite things, and you just come up with craziness. You can make some amount of sense out of it, but you have to work very hard. And so, we just ignore that stuff. So, you can do stuff with it, but you have to be very careful, and that's well beyond what we do in this class. So, this manipulation only makes sense when x is less than 1. So, now we have another series here that we can obtain from an old one by taking derivatives. We can also, I mean, and again, I can get another series by taking a derivative again, but I can get a series for 1 over 1 minus x cubed, and so on, right? We can also go another way. Actually, we use that word. Suppose, again, only for certain values of x, suppose I wanted to represent the arc tangent as a series. Well, I remember, I hope you remember, that this is the integral of 1 over 1 plus x squared, the x plus a constant. Let's forget about the constant right now, or if you like, I can put a t here and integrate it into here and that. So, we can use this same kind of idea to derive a series for the arc tangent. What would we do? So, we have to do it in stages. What do we need first? First term. Well, no, I don't want to get the first term and then the second term. But, let's use the fact that we already know another series. So, can I somehow, by standard manipulations that I already know, transform this into this? So, can I replace this x with something to get it to be a 1 over 1 plus x squared? Overplace what do I make? Negative x squared, starting at 0 equals 0, the infinity of 1 plus x squared. Negative x squared, the n, goes by straight substitution. Again, this is only good for x less than 1 in absolute value, which I can do a little algebra to make it per year. So, this is minus 1 to the n x to the 2 n, okay? Now, we're close. Now, we integrate. So, of course, this is relying on a big theorem that we have improvement by playing this through, which is that we can integrate term by term. So, and so I'm claiming that this is the same thing as if I integrate each term. So, again, let me write out, well, just to emphasize what we're doing, we're integrating each term of this series here. So, when n is n is 0, I have a 1. When n is 1, I have a minus x squared. When n is 2, I have a plus x to the 4th minus x cubed. That's what I'm doing, but I'm actually going to do it in this form. It's easier. So, when I integrate, what happens? Well, I pick up a constant because I get a constant in variation. When I integrate 1, I get an x. When I integrate x squared, I get a minus x cubed over 3. When I integrate x to the 4th, I get an x to the 5th. When I integrate x to the 6th, I get an x to the 7th over 7th. And so on. If we want to do it sort of all in one shot, minus 1 to the n is a constant because we're integrating with respect to x. So, this is some constant that I'm not telling you yet. And then when I integrate, I get minus 1 to the n. That's just some number, plus 1 or minus 1. And then x to the 2n, it's x to the 2n plus 1, but I have to divide by 2. We did some magic trick here. Well, it's written right there. I can't write it again. So, we don't know at the moment what this constant of integration is, but we do. What is this constant of integration in this case? How can we figure it out? Okay, again, I'm claiming that the arc tan is some number that we don't know what we do plus this series. Yes, that's it, yeah. Good guess, though. So, how can we figure it out? Yeah. Exactly. So, we know that the arc tan, so this is 4x small. None of this stuff makes any sense if x is bigger than 1. But if x is less than 1, then this is true. We know that arc tan of 0 has to be that same constant plus some n equals 0 to infinity minus 1 to the n, 0 to the 2n plus 1 over 2n plus 1. That's all 0. So, c is whatever the arc tangent of 0 is. What angle has a tangent of 0? 0. So, c is 0. So, in fact, this constant doesn't matter. It's 0. So, what we've just done is figured out that the arc tangent is, so, 2n plus 1 is just a clever way to write odd. So, this is like this, x minus x cubed over 3 plus x 5 over 4 or 5 minus x 7 over 7 plus blah, blah. So, what good is this? Well, one thing that this is good for is if we don't, if we aren't able to actually calculate a value of the arc tangent directly. I mean, why do you think, well, your calculator is now smarter, but what do you think your calculator is doing when you ask for an arc tangent? It doesn't just magically know it. It needs to calculate it. Current calculators use a smarter version of this, but you can just calculate this series. If I want to know the arc tangent of 0.03, I plug in 0.03 and I compute a series like this with enough terms to whatever calculator, whatever accuracy I want. So, this is what's going on, well, not exactly this because there are better ways, but something like this, this is what's going on inside the calculator when you want to calculate the arc tangent. You transform something transcendental into something arithmetic. Newton actually tried to figure out the series for, I don't know, maybe the tangent by trying to solve, by trying to invert this series, but he was a smart guy and he made good progress on that. That's a little harder than what we want to do. Other things we can do is we can multiply and divide them and so on, so we'll do more of this manipulation of function of series after the plan. Oh, one other announcement, I'm going to hold next to office hours tomorrow. I still have office hours today, but I'm going to hold office hours tomorrow as well.


So between medical school residency and now being attending, which is the hardest? Now for me by far has to be residency, mainly because your schedule as a resident is absolutely nuts, particularly in the field of internal medicine, where every four days I was doing a 28 hour shift within the hospital. It definitely takes a toll on you over the span of two to three years. In addition, I realized that not only is residency tough because you're learning new medicine and just always working with patients, you tend to get the most difficult and most complex patients for your learning purposes. As an attending now, I do find that yes, I have those head scratcher patients where I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but majority of the patients that I take care of are pretty straightforward. So I've seen them enough times, but as a resident, that wasn't the goal. You didn't want to always see the bread and butter you wanted to see those zebras so then you can better manage patients who have these exotic diseases. And so not only are you working long hours trying to master a language within medicine that you're not quite comfortable with, you're also getting the toughest patients. All of those put together makes residency the most difficult of all of those three. Now if you want more insights and behind the scenes of life as a doctor, as a full-time physician, go ahead and hit that like, subscribe and follow for more content just like this one.


And outside Africa, China has shut down railways and ports before typhoon in fast expected landfall. Flights have also been cancelled and villagers evacuated to temporary shelters. The storm is projected to hit an eastern coastal province late on Sunday. This is happening as other parts of the country struggle to recover from devastating floods earlier this week. Authorities have issued a Level 3 alert for the storm. It's the third highest level. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Join W J C T public media for an evening with Sonia Manzano Sonia best known for playing Maria on Sesame Street and the creator and executive producer of Alma's way will join W J C T's president and CEO David McGowan for a dynamic fought provoking conversation Thursday, November 17th at W J C T studios reception at 6 p.m. For tickets and additional information go to W J C T dot org slash events sponsored in part by PNC Bank and Jimenez law firm


Hello dear learners, I am Dr. Stratistrova Purali, Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science working at Krishna Kanto-Hendikoi State Open University. In this video, I am going to talk about coding techniques. This topic is a part of the course Digital Techniques. Coding of characters has been standardized to enable transfer of data between computers. We need to represent different kinds of data like symbols, numeric, alpha-numeric data in the computer system. Computers use binary coding schemes to represent this data internally. Some of the popular coding schemes are BCD, ASCII and GrapeCode. Now, let us look at the first coding scheme that is binary coded decimal or BCD. BCD is a way to express each of the decimal digits with the binary equivalent. It is a four digit binary code for representing 0 to 9 in the decimal form. Now, if you look at the slide in the right hand side, you can see that we have the decimal numbers 0, 1, 2, 3 and then we have their corresponding BCD form. Now, this BCD form is the binary equivalent of the decimal numbers. Now, let us look at how we can convert a number from decimal to BCD. So, now if we want to convert the decimal number 13 to its BCD form, then we can proceed in this way. So, first of all, we will convert the first digit that is 1 in this case. So, we will take the BCD equivalent of 1. So, which is 0, 0, 0, 1 which is simply the binary equivalent of 1 in, but now we are going to use four bits to represent this. Next, we will take the second digit that is 3 and now again we will convert 3 into its BCD form that is 0, 0, 1, 1. So, to get the decimal equivalent of 1, 3 what we will do is we will combine this 1 and 3 and then we will get the BCD equivalent of 13. So, that will be 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1. So, in this way we can convert any decimal number to its BCD form. So, now let us look at an example where we can convert a BCD number to its decimal equivalent. So, for that in this example we have taken a BCD number 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1. So, we are going to convert this BCD number to its decimal equivalent. So, for that what we have to do is we need to look at this BCD numbers as a four bit number and we will start there by going from left to right. So, the first four numbers I am going to combine this and then I need to get the decimal equivalent of this four bit. So, the decimal equivalent of 1, 0, 0, 0 will be 8. Now again the decimal equivalent of this four bits that is 0, 0, 1, 1 will be 3. So, in this way I can get the decimal equivalent of a BCD number. So, I simply need to combine these two digits that is 8 and 3 and I get the decimal equivalent of a BCD number. Now, learners let us look at the rules for doing BCD addition. So, the first rule is that we can add two BCD numbers using the binary addition rules itself. And the second is that if the four bits sum is equal to or less than 9 then it is a valid BCD number. But if a four bit sum is greater than 9 or if there is a carry of a four bit group generated then it will be an invalid result. There are six invalid states for BCD addition. These are 1, 0, 1, 0 that is 10, 1, 0, 1, 1, 11, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0 and 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. So, these six states are six these are the invalid states. So, now if we get the states what we need to do is we need to add 6 that is 0, 1, 1, 0 to the four bit sum in order to skip these six states and then return the code again to the BCD form. Now, if there is a carry again then the results are again then we need to add 6 again to it and we simply add the carry to the next four bit group. So, now let us look at an example on how we can do BCD addition. So, learners now let us look at the addition for two BCD numbers. So, we have taken two numbers the first one is this and the second one is this. So, now for adding them again we need to divide them into four bit numbers. So, again this one also we will take it as four bit. So, now and then we will add the first part of this four bit number to the first part of the second number and the second part of this first four bit number to the second part of the second four bit number. So, here we can see this 1, 0, 0, 1 we are adding it with this one 0, 0, 0, 1. So, now we get a result then this is simple binary addition. So, we can see the result will be 1, 0, 1, 0. Now, this 1, 0, 1, 0 is an invalid BCD form. So, what we need to do is we need to add 6 that is 0, 1, 1, 0 to this number group. Now, before doing this addition let us look at the second part of the voter numbers. So, now what we will do is we have this part that is 0, 1, 1, 1 we are going to add this with the second one that is 0, 0, 1, 0. So, now we will have the addition and get the result as 1, 0, 0, 1 which is a valid BCD form. So, now if you look at the decimal numbers of this BCD form then the first number is equivalent to 97 and the second number is equivalent to 12. So, now our this part is valid. So, we do not need to add any 6 component to here, but since this part is invalid we need to add 6 that is represented by 0, 1, 1, 0 to this invalid BCD number. So, for doing that we have this addition and now if we see this is again simple binary addition. So, if we see now we will get 0 plus 0, 0, 1 plus 1, 0 and have a carry of 1 again 1 plus 1, 0 and again a carry of 1. So, 1 plus 1, 0 and a carry of 1. So, now this carry over 1 will come here we are going to add this carry in the front of this BCD number. So, now the equivalent of the equivalent addition of this two BCD numbers will be 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0 and 1, 0, 0, 1 this one. So, all of this part together will be the addition value of this two BCD numbers. Now, in the decimal form also if we see 97 plus 12 should give us a value of 109 which we get from when we convert this BCD number to its decimal form. Now, learners let us look at the second coding technique that is American Standard Code for Information Interchange or ASCII. Now, the ASCII is a 7 bit binary code and so it represents 128 character codes. Now, these character codes are starting from 0 to 127. Now, let us look at an example the code for the capital letter A is always represented by the order number 65 which can be easily represented using 0s and 1s in binary. And the first 32 characters in the ASCII table are unprintable control codes. For example, NAL, ESCII, these are some kind of examples of the control CAD codes in ASCII format. Now, let us look at another coding technique. Another popular coding technique is extended binary coded decimal interchange code or EBCDIC. Now, EBCDIC is an IBM code for representing characters as numbers. Now, it uses 8 bits per character and thus it can represent 256 characters. In this format, the first 4 bits are known as zone bits and the remaining 4 bits they represent the digit values. Now, let us look at another coding technique. The next coding technique is gray code. Now, the gray code is named after Frank K where it is a binary numeral system where two successive values differ in only one digit. Now, if you see at the right-hand side of the slide we can see that we have the decimal equivalence and then we have the gray code equivalence and also we have the binary equivalence. So, now if you look at the first gray code for representing decimal number 0 it is 0001. Now, if you look at the second decimal number 1 its equivalent gray code is 0001. So, now for each successive gray code only one bit position is going to change. Now, this happens for all the gray codes. Now, gray code is used to facilitate error correction in digital communication systems. Now, let us look at the rules for binary to gray code conversion. So, there are two steps in it. The first step is that the most significant bit that is the left-most bit in the gray code will be the same as the corresponding most significant bit in the binary code. The step 2 is that we will go from left to right and then add each pair of adjacent bits of binary code to get the next gray bit code. And if there is a carry in this addition then we are going to discard that carry. Now, let us look at an example for binary to gray code conversion. So, learners now let us try to find a gray code for this binary code that is 01011. So, we have already stated in the rules that the MSP part will be same. So, the MSP for this binary is 1 so that MSP for the gray code will also be 1. So, in the next step what we are going to do is we are going to add this we are going to start from left to right. So, what we are going to do is we are going to add this 1 with this 0 in the binary code. So, 1 plus 0 we have 1 so that will be the equivalent next gray code position. Again 0 plus 1 again we get a value of 1 so this will be placed in the next position. Again we have 1 plus 1 so we will have 1 plus 1 is 1 0 we will discard the carry that is 1 and the 0 will keep. So, the gray code equivalent of the binary code 1011 will be 1110. Now, learners in the previous slide we have seen how to convert from binary code to gray code. Now, in this slide we are going to see how we can convert from gray code to binary code. So, the first step is the same that is the most significant bit or the left most bit in the binary code will be the same as the corresponding most significant bit in the gray code. In the second step now we are going to add each binary code bit generated by the gray code to the next addition position of the gray code. And if there is a carry in this addition then we are going to discard the carry part. Now, let us look at an example. Now, learners in this example we are going to find out the gray code equivalent of a binary code that is 1110. So, here we have this binary number 1110 and now if you want to find out the gray code we already know that the msv value of the binary code will be same with the gray code. So, this one will be convert as soon as it is. Now, we are going the next rules but we have as we are going to add this newly generated gray code bit with the adjacent binary code bit. So, we are going to add 1 plus 1. So, we get a value of 10. So, one part we are going to discard it and the 0 will keep it here. Now, again this is the newly generated gray code bit. So, this newly generated code bit we are going to add with the adjacent binary. So, this is the adjacent binary. So, we are going to add 0 plus 1. So, we get the addition value 1. Again this is the newly generated code. So, we are going to add this 1 with the adjacent binary code that is 0. So, we will get 1 plus 0 we will get 1. So, now the gray code equivalent of the binary code 1110 will be 1011. Thank you for listening to this video.


Oh hi there lovers and friends. Today's video is about how do you turn someone on? How do you get someone horny beyond the basic biological triggers? I get most people's sexual arousal cycles, sparking and moving and flowing. What are the things you can specifically do to different kinds of people that get them in the schmoold. And your job today is to figure out what your turn on trigger is. And through doing that, you'll be able to open up dialogues with people that you care about to find out what their turn on triggers is. Now if you're thinking to yourself, this sounds a lot like Gary Chapman's The Five Love Languages. Ding, ding, ding. That is exactly what this was inspired by. What I love about the Five Love Languages and now the six turn on triggers that I have identified is that it truly takes what the importance of communication is and highlights it. So good communication to me is not just about what you want to say and being able to say that, it's knowing what you want to accomplish. And so your delivery isn't about what you want, it's what the other person will receive. Intent and outcome are not the same things. I can have the absolute best intentions while communicating with you, but if I don't do it in a way that fits you, my outcome could look a lot different than I was expecting. And turn on triggers is a way to eliminate all of that fog. You want to cut through the noise and get to the heart of what you're looking for, which is a consensual, wet, hot, awesome, intense sexual experience with the person that you care about. So the very best way to figure out what your turn on trigger is, is through a quiz, obviously because I don't know you and I can't talk to you, but through this quiz we can get a snapshot of what you might be into. So here's what this is going to work. This video is sponsored by Squarespace, which fun fact, Squarespace is where I created the website, TheGameofDesire.com, which is where this quiz is also hosted. While I talk about Squarespace and gush about their amazing work and how it has impacted my job and my creativity, I want you to open up a second tab and type in the gameofdesire.com slash quiz two.  And when we come back to this tab, you're going to have your results and then we're going to break them down. With Squarespace, I was able to fully design my website for my book, The Game of Desire. Quizzes, Advanced Forms, Private Page, and a mailing list with Squarespace, I was able to execute my vision to a tee without killing my pockets. If you want to give them a try, here's how it works. Squarespace has loads of templates that are customizable. You can build a personal blog, a store, an online portfolio. They have all kinds of tools to fulfill your creative and business needs. Okay. So here's the quick lowdown. Go to squarespace.com slash shambutti. You can start poking around and building a site for free. But if you want to launch your site, go back to squarespace.com slash shambutti and that's how you're going to get 10% off any purchase of a domain or website. From there, go ahead and open up a store, manage your inventory, do email campaigns all through your account. Long story short, Squarespace is truly the easiest, fastest way to launch your next big idea. Welcome back. I hope you had fun doing that quiz and now you know just a little bit more about your freaky side. I'm actually going to read out the different results you got in order of popularity because at this point, 20,000 plus people have completed the quiz on my website and now you are just adding to that lovely, incredible group. So I'm going to share some insights with you as well as revealing which were the most popular. Let's go.  Not sexy thoughts per se, but hearty conversation when they feel like they can connect with somebody intellectually to share a vulnerable thought, to learn something new, to challenge their ideals. That's what truly fires them up.  What's important to note about the mental is that they aren't the people that you can just go at it with. If they don't feel like the two of you have established a firm mental connection, it's a no go. Not only that, just because you had a great mental connection two days ago, that doesn't mean two days later, they still feel that for you. So if they think that you guys are out of sync, not on the same page, they haven't got a chance to really connect with you, they're not again going to have that same physical response to you. The second most popular result thus far has been desire and I can speak to this one because it is my turn on trigger to a T words are so important to me. Direct words of affirmation, direct words of what you want to do to me, how I make you feel, what I look like. When I have established a sexual connection with someone, nothing gets me fired up more than knowing that I am desired by them and hearing all the things that they want to do to me with that desire at the forefront. What does not work for somebody who has desire as a turn on trigger is any kind of minimizing language, even if it's a joke, sarcastic comments made about their appearance, their breath, their smell, just their desirability as a whole will have them being in their head for majority of the sexual experience and may be really hard for them to overcome. So words of affirmation are pretty important and also they just like to hear it. We're into dirty talk, we're into that straight good so give us the goods. Another turn on trigger is environmental and these are people who are very sensitive to the senses. They want to be in an environment that celebrates all of their heightened senses in those moments. These individuals may also be very sensitive to vibes, to vibrations. They might be into rocks or crystals or into feng shui. The energy of the room is essentially the third sexual partner or fourth or fifth if you already have two people in there, but the setting is also a part of the sexual play and if the setting is off, they're just not turned on. The next turn on trigger is the visual. And for these people, when they see something that they like, they want to put that right in their mouth. There's just like a direct correlation between what they see and what they want. It doesn't take a whole room, doesn't take any candles. You don't need any kind of special language. You don't have to have any kind of conversation.  Now what's important to note about the visual is that there's a lot of different ways that people might be visually stimulated. A visual person, for example, might have an affixiation with a particular body part, a la having a foot fetish, or they might really get turned on by the sight of hair or the opposite turned off by the sight of hair. So for this one, there really isn't a recipe for how to get the visual excited. You have to really get to know them, get to know their taste and their aesthetic and try and play into that. The next turn on trigger, I must admit, I'm a little bit of this. This is the cat and the mouse. These are people who like the games. They're into the chase. And so if something is just thrown at them and given to them way too easy, it's kind of a turn off for them. For these individuals, they are, in essence, a lot like a cat. When you think about a house cat, you can't walk into its domain and start petting it right away or trying to get the cat to interact with you. The cat has to choose you. They have to find in their own time and energy that they are ready to come over to you and they will allow you to pet them versus you being the initiator. And so if you are with a cat and mouse kind of person, you got to just set the mood. You got to be uncomfortable, a little bit of tension. You got to play into the tension. And if they don't bite that day, try again tomorrow. But trying to force yourself on them is just never going to be the wave. And the final turn on trigger, which I think is very important for us all to acknowledge and understand, is transactional. And transactional essentially means there's got to be more than just sex on the table for them to want to join the feast with you. Not everyone is crazy about physical connection. Not everyone is enticed by the idea of sex. Some people identify as asexual or graysexual or demisexual or just have a low libido in general.  They need something else that they actually prioritize, also added into the mix of negotiations. They need for you to say, hey, later on today, I just really want to get down with you. I'll go get your car some gas. When I come back, do you think we might be able to? And then they might be open to actually doing that. They may want an active service, a financial offering, or they may require something else like for the next day, you're going to prioritize what brings them pleasure in return. There has to be an even trade. And for them, physical and physical is just not it. And that is it. Those are the six turn on triggers. You know what comes next in the comment section below. Write what your turn on trigger is and why it's so you. And if you did not feel that you were represented amongst the six that were mentioned, please write it in the comment section below as well. These kinds of conversations to me are so, so crucial. One of the quotes that we hear all the time is the key to successful relationships is communication. But what do we say? What kind of conversations do we have? And what should be the desired outcome? So having guided conversations like these that bring up very important things in structured ways, I think is a massive component to the building blocks of healthy, intimate connections. And that's all I want for you guys. And speaking of connections, Squarespace, don't know how that worked, but it definitely does shout out to Squarespace once again for being the site that I chose to create my website on and for being a resource for me to communicate to all of you. That's the link. There we go. For being a resource for me to communicate to all of you, what important things I'm working on right now? With Squarespace, you can be rebranded in no time. And you don't have to hand over a bunch of cash to a website designer. They have loads of easy to use templates and they are so customizable that making your website unique to you is simple and fun. Squarespace is the solution. It's a one stop shop for your portfolio, online store or really whatever you need. Need a domain? No worries. You can buy one directly through Squarespace. Already have a domain? No stress. Transfer over your existing domain today. With Squarespace, it's never been easier to have an online presence by allowing you to manage your products, orders and inventory in one spot. Squarespace also has you covered with standout email campaigns for your mailing list. They truly are the easiest and fastest way to launch your business today. So go to Squarespace.com to start your free trial. And when you're ready to launch, go to Squarespace.com slash Amboody to get 10% off your first purchase of a domain or a website.


Is your friend acting a bit more than friendly? Do you feel they might actually have a crush on you? You may think it's weird, but it's not unusual for people to start liking their friends. You became friends because you liked something about the other. And those feelings can sometimes cross the line between friendship and romantic love. But when you suspect that, it can be a confusing situation. Maybe you feel it would be too awkward to ask them directly. Here are six signs your friend actually wishes to be your lover. Number one, they want to be near you all the time. When you hang out in a group, do they pull you aside to talk? Sit next to you every time or walk next to you only? Or do they try to find ways to hang out with you without the group? Spending time with someone you like quickly becomes a priority. You always want to be near them. Even sitting in silence is exciting if your crush is next to you. If your friend is trying to spend more than usual time with you, as much as they can, it could mean they want to be more than friends. Maybe they also text you more than they text others and they don't seem as interested in them as they are in you. And they might seem a bit jealous when you have plans with someone else. Number two, they want to take pictures together. Do they constantly take out their phone to take a selfie with you? When they want to create a deeper connection with you, they won't seem to care about group fees much. Their phone gallery might be full of pictures of just the two of you. This could be a sign that they're so head over heels for you that they spend their days looking at your pictures and dreaming of what could be. Number three, they're always there for you.  Are they willing to get halfway across town just to meet you for a quick coffee? When somebody has deeper feelings for you, they're ready to go far and beyond. So half hour walk in the rain just to see your loved one doesn't seem so bad. They listen more closely to what you are saying in order to understand you better. And most importantly, you're sure they're not gonna abandon you when you need them the most. Do you know anyone else who will always be there for you? Well, it's psych to go. Well, so many people confused about their relationship troubles these days were more committed than ever to making relationship content more accessible to everybody. Thank you for sticking with us. Did you know that subscribing to psych to go and hitting the like button may make that special someone want to be more than friends with you? Just kidding. But still, it would mean a lot to us. Number four, they notice changes in your appearance. Did they compliment you even when you only termed your hair or when you wore that extra nice shirt for the first time? They are quick to notice every little tiny detail you thought no one would notice. If that description fits them, it means they're paying attention. And paying attention to someone is usually a clear sign of attraction.  Number five, they're nervous around you. Are they suddenly seeming nervous or awkward around you lately? Being next to your crush can feel so exciting that you temporarily forget how to talk or walk. They may touch their hair or fix their clothes while anxiously looking your way. They probably feel like they need to be perfect around you and they're scared to mess it up. They want you to think they're the best so they're trying to be the best one around you. So sweet. And number six, they avoid the topic of love. It can hurt seeing your crush fall in love with another. If your friend is interested in you, they'll be hesitant about the topic of love around you. They avoid talking about love life altogether. Be it yours or theirs. They change the topic or act nervous when someone asks about love. It's quite possible that they don't have the courage to be open about their feelings towards you.  Love is complicated. You can never know for real what makes a person's heart beat faster. Try hanging out with them as you always did. If you like them too, you can encourage them to make the first move. Even if you're still confused about their feelings, time will tell for sure. Or maybe they'll tell you themselves. Who knows? So what do you think? Could there really be some sparks there? Do you know about some other signs that weren't mentioned? Feel free to leave a comment with your experiences, feedback or suggestions. If you found this video helpful, be sure to hit the like button and share it with others too. Don't forget to subscribe to Psych2Go and hit the notification bell for more new videos. Thanks for watching.


litter. You see it everywhere and don't we all hate it. It's unsightly and causes harm to wildlife and their habitats. Litter doesn't clean itself away, it can take years to degrade. Some of the worst littering we see is at the side of our roads. For some reason it seems that some people think it's okay to throw their rubbish out of their vehicles window and it costs all of us taxpayers a great deal of money to clean it up. During the first quarter of this year, more than 1,300 bags of rubbish were collected from almost 140 miles of the busiest roads in South Cambridgeshire at a cost of nearly £70,000. So the council is doing what it can but we can all do our bit to help and taking your litter home or placing it into a bin would be a very good start. Most of us come across litter every day even walking across this field this afternoon, a farmers field. It's easy to find litter. It's for this reason that litter picking groups have sprung up in villages all across our district. They do a huge amount to help with the problem and it could be much much worse without them. We thank them all for their efforts. The council encourages litter picking community groups and offers support to them. They can provide gloves, litter pickers you know these things and bags and if you have a big litter picking day when you pick up a lot of stuff and if you let them know about it they'll collect the waste you collect afterwards and make a special journey. They also offer advice on how to conduct social distancing compliant community litter picks. The Keep Britain Tidy campaign group are also very active on this subject and it's a good source of information that's Keep Britain Tidy. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of all of us to deal with littering. When you come across it why not pick it up and put it where it should have gone in the first place in the bin or in the recycling bin. I think if everybody did their little bit even if you just pick up one or two pieces on a walk it will make a huge difference. Thanks.


I'd like to now welcome the rest of our panel for Anders Sturresson, he's a special advisor to the Swedish Ministry of Environment. He was also Sweden's lead climate negotiator until 2010 and until last fall was coordinator of Sweden's Environment Advisory Council, wherever you'd like. And then I would like to invite Björn Ola Linné. He is professor in environmental change at the Center for Climate Science and Policy Research at Linn-Schöpping University and he has done quite a bit of work on the role of non-state actors in international climate policy, so that should be an interesting conversation about the action agenda. And then I would like to invite my colleague Sivan Kartha. He is a senior scientist at SEI's US Center. But he does not have a table. Oh, we have to somehow arrange, I'm sorry, I need to put you two, there's swan mics for all of you. Perhaps I can go. I don't think so. I have a microphone. And last, I'd like to invite Harro van Assaut. He's a senior research fellow in our Oxford Center and a huge climate policy geek. Just so you know, we will try to say if Katja here helps me keep time properly, I will save some time for questions from the audience. So if you have questions, please do take note of them. We will try to accommodate as many as we can. So is everybody ready? So the first question I want to ask is, as has already been mentioned, there are negotiations happening right now in Bonn to try to whittle that negotiating text down into something reasonable. And I'm wondering, what are the one or two issues that you think are the most important to address right now to make this agreement viable? And I don't know, let's begin from the end, Sivan. Thank you. There are a lot of important issues to address. I think we can't expect they will all be addressed in Paris. But if there's one overarching thing that I think is absolutely important, in fact, vital to the survival, really, of the climate regime, it's that the discussions, the negotiations and the actual outcome in Paris is not and does not even seem to be a mitigation focused agreement. Climate change is much more than just mitigation. It's mitigation, it's adaptation, it's the financial and technological support. And if developing countries in particular see it to be mitigation focused, it will be perceived as neglecting their concerns, which are primarily development focused. So as Johan invoked at the beginning of the conversation, there is a tension between environment development. They can both be addressed in a climate agreement. There isn't a trade-off, they're not mutually exclusive. But if the development concerns, which in the climate context are adaptation and financial technology support, are not addressed, then it could be very damaging, it could be toxic to the process. Thank you. Bernola? Well, the two issues, I think, are clarity and finance. There is, yesterday Brazil said that we have a long list on what we are intending to do, but not who should do what. So many developing countries, including Brazil, are now criticizing the process for lacking clarity on how we differentiate between commitments. And of course, that can be seen as a natural process when we have this bottom-up process with INDCs. So but the finance issues will clearly be an important issue to have more clarity on what you raised here. Who will deliver what to the, first of all, the capitalization of the Green Climate Fund. But then also, how do we reflect the equity issues? There will still be demand for that, even though we build this bottom-up for sure. And I think the bond negotiations need some clarity there to move forward. You Haru? Right. So in addition to a lot of the substantive issues that Shivana and Bernola already raised, I would raise two issues of procedure and process, going in the lead up to Paris. I think the first aspect of the process, and of course, I'm sure that the Ambassador LeBouche and the French government is very aware of this, is about making sure that everyone feels included. And it's a tricky balance that needs to be found between on the one hand trying to make sure that everyone indeed does feel included, but at the same time keeping things manageable. But I think one of the risks, and this is going back to 2009 of Copenhagen, was that it was not seen as an inclusive process, not seen as a fair process by a number of countries. And I think that's one of the key things and one of the biggest issues that needs to be avoided. But also related to that, and again, the Copenhagen example is quite telling in that respect, is about expectations management. I think Copenhagen was in many ways it could be seen as a failure, but I think the biggest failure, I would say, is in terms of how the expectations were managed ahead of the meeting. So I think this is, I guess, what can be learned in the run up to Paris, how to make sure that we really manage the expectations, to make sure that the trust and the belief in the UNFCCC process as a whole is not lost. This does not mean that lower expectations means lower ambition. I think the ambition should be as high as possible. But we also need to be realistic about what is achievable in different countries at this stage. Great, thank you. And I can really agree with that, management of expectations. Since I have this experience from Copenhagen, I know how important it is, but yet how difficult it is, and it will be really a task for the French presidency, but for everyone, of course, because it is actually not possible to make everyone happy. You have to build up expectations, because, after all, Paris is a very important meeting, and that cannot be hidden somehow. But yet that will create expectations that will not be fulfilled completely, of course. The issue is not to overburden the expectations somehow, high expectations, but not too high. I guess that the job in Bonn now will be very much to work with texts, simplify texts, try to structure them in a way that is comprehensible to everybody. And that is perceived as a balance between all these issues that have been touched upon, because the trick in the climate change negotiations is often to create a balanced process that ultimately ends with a balanced result, of course. And if you go ahead on one issue, the stakeholders of other issues will definitely halt the process. So the balance will probably be very important. Of course, we all wish that some issues could be resolved before, or more or less resolved before Paris. I don't know if that's possible. I think it is at least possible to simplify the text and try to distill them, and try to focus the political discussion in the process before Paris to the important issues. And if that is possible, I can really congratulate the French presidency, I'm not saying. So you have absolutely nothing to take care of. You can just go on vacation now. Yes, absolutely. No, I agree with Anders. And it's really a technical answer, but the real challenge and the real target for Bonn is to reduce the text. We have two weeks. The two co-chairs of the presidents have decided to make two readings of the text. They will be held by 11 facilitators from 11 different countries, because they don't have enough hours in the day during these two weeks to deal with this extraordinary difficult to have 195 delegation agree on drafting the text. So this is the first challenge. But the second one, of course, it's linked to trust. If you don't have trust between the parties, you won't arrive to anything, because you know how it is. You can have a blockage at the start of the negotiation, and you stand two or three days blocked, and nothing happens. So you need to create a good mood. So yes, work long hours with facilitators, creating a feeling of trust. And to have trust, you have to deal with differentiation and balance between adaptation and mitigation, as was said, and finance. So everything is linked. You need that to create trust. How do you make sure that, Ambassador, how do you make sure that developing countries, in particular, given that there is so much work to do? And some delegations from the EU or from the United States or so are very large groups, but developing countries have far fewer people there. How do you make sure that everybody can be at the table about every part of the text? Well, that's why you have groupings in the system. You have groupings of the G77, the LDCs, but also geographical groupings, for example, ALAC, or the Bolivarian country for Latin American. The EU, the African country, are really working together, and they have collaboration. And that's why in this informal meeting, we have both big countries, but also representative of these different groupings. So yes, of course, they don't have the same capacity. There are systems and funding to help them. For example, for INDC, I take the example of France, not to boast, because many countries are doing that. But the French development agencies opened a fund to help African countries mainly table their INDC, because it's technically quite a work to prepare an INDC. So we have also this technical assistance system. We have every reason to believe that no matter how wonderfully this turns out, we will not be at two degrees, that more ambition will still have to be added somehow, and that more work will need to be done after Paris. So I want to ask you all, how do we make an imperfect agreement work? What do you think are sort of the most important things that have to happen after Paris? And we'll just start again from. Yeah, as Harold said, we can't have expectations that are too high. The ambition won't be where we'd like to be. What we don't want to have happen is what unfortunately did happen in Copenhagen, which is that pledges that ended up being fairly weak were listed, and then they were basically locked in. And that's what we're stuck with. We're scrambling. We're trying to make up for lost time and deepen the efforts that our countries are doing before 2020. But the pledges that were put on the table and pretty much graven in stone is basically what countries are shooting toward. So what we need in Paris are some footholds to steadily increase ambition, to make sure that the numbers that are put on the table for 2025, 2030, aren't locked in. So what could those footholds look like? One thing we need, I think, is that we can't have countries signaling that these pledges are their bottom line and they'll go no further. We have to have countries signaling some flexibility. Currently, unfortunately, there are some countries that are saying, no, no, this is it. Take it or leave it. Another thing we need, I think, is a credible process for effective international collaboration. We need a process whereby developing countries can come forward with credible proposals for mitigation activity, adaptation activity, and those are matched with the financial and technological support from developed countries. Something that's incremental and progressive and that builds learning and builds trust and creates the institutions and proves those institutions and refines them. Without that, we'll just have continued sort of high-level abstract demands for financial and technological support that are very difficult politically for developed countries to come forward and meet. Yeah, this is a great question. This is what it's all about because it's not so important what we agree on in Paris. We can develop on that later, I think. But actually what will happen after Paris, no matter how the agreement, or even if we have an agreement, is the crucial thing. And there is then three things. First of all, the short-term action. What we will do until 2020 to not lose momentum. So that is the first thing. And here, you who are gathered here today have a lot to do, I guess, especially ACI, on how to incentivize and share best practices and so on and also to use the finance that will be available for natural appropriate mitigation actions and so on to get some momentum quickly, even before the implementation phase starts at 2020. For instance, there was a very interesting meeting in Bonn yesterday called the Technical Expert Meeting on Renewable Energy Supply, where best practices were shared and ideas on how to actually that could work in different economies and so on. As an example, what we can do in the short-term. Then the tricky thing is to implement an agreement. So what will happen with these grand strategies that are outlined in the INDCs? They are supposed to be implementable. We have a lot of strategies, not the least in developing countries, like LU, emission development strategies and so on. The trick is then to see how these can be implemented. And I think the broad palette of INDCs that we would see, some of them will be very concrete. We have good examples how you can work with implementation in different countries. Unfortunately, the EU is very vague there. This is one of my criticisms to the EU. Maybe we can get a reply on that. People are more into the EU. But they're very vague. But other countries, I think, like the EU, it's more concrete. The US is more concrete. Good for you guys. That is one thing. And then, as you mentioned, then how we would ratchet up this INDCs in the years to come. And I hope it will be five years, INDCs, so we will have a process that these ambitions can be ratcheted up and start the discussion right away afterwards. Great. Before I let Haro go, I should encourage you all to read Haro's really great paper on assessment and review that includes a lot about, basically, how assessment and review can help ratchet up ambition of INDCs.  That's right. I think one of the risk with these discussions, of course, is also to make clear the jargon that we use in UNIFCCC processes as much as possible. So again, INDCs, as Ambassador LaPouche was mentioning, it's basically the national pledges, the national contributions put forward under the UNIFCCC context. I'm not going to add much more to what Bjorn Ola has said. Maybe one point that I can add is beyond ratcheting up, we also have to very much avoid ratcheting down. So and already, there's quite a high level of agreement among parties in the UNIFCCC process that whatever is put forward in the next round, in the next cycle, is actually more ambitious than in the last round. I have a feeling that there might still be some pushback against the provision like this in Paris but also beyond. But I do think that such provision, which just gives a signal, whatever we're going to do, we're only going to be more ambitious over time. It's going to be incredibly important in terms of providing a signal to civil society, to business actors, and you name it. Well, I mean, it is clear that we need a process after Paris, that's for sure. But I would still like to underline the role of Paris because it's there we set the stage for this process very much. And I think one of the most important parts in setting the stage is actually to get contributions that, although not sufficient to reach the two degree target, will still be perceived as a major step forward, I think this is crucial because if that is not achieved, I think the whole mood will be bad afterwards and we have to recapitulate somehow the whole thing. So that is important. Besides that, I don't think I can add very much to what has already been said. So you don't expect the presidency to say that we won't reach the target consistent with plus two degree, but we have to accept that it is one of the possibilities, of course, when you see the contribution at that time. I would even say that many countries, more and more, that's always been the position of the small and vulnerable country, the islands, saying that two degrees too much and it should be 1.5 degrees. So the reality that we should have the best possible result, 1.5 would be better than two, but 2.5 would be better than three and so on. Having said that, Paris is important, as you said, because that would be the first series of commitment. This commitment, they have a horizon of 2025 or 2030, most of them, which means that after a world, there would be something. So it's just the first type of commitment. So the kind of architecture the delegations are thinking about is to have an agreement which is there to stay, which we don't want to renegotiate every five years, because it's too much work. And if we have a good agreement with good rules, it's there to stay and give the previsibility. But the commitment, which will be beside the agreement and the question of the legal nature of the link between the commitment and the agreement is one of the complex issues in the negotiation. But this commitment, they will have to be renewed. And so we have a debate on the cycles. Should it be a cycle of five years, 10 years and so on? Do you personally like five years? Frankly, I don't have any liking. It's for the negotiators to discuss that. Again, we have the presidency. The presidency is not there to say, you do that, you do that. We want them, the only thing we say that we want the most ambitious, the widest and the most binding agreement. And final point, there is also the debate on the question of a long-term goal. Because we have a long-term goal in term of degree, which is plus two degrees. But shouldn't we try to translate it into a reduction of GAG in the long term? And you have discussion on whether in Paris, also perhaps we could have a 2050 target of between minus 40 and 70% reduction of GAG. And even perhaps in 2017, a zero net emission target. So you see the architecture ideally would be to have a long-term target, an agreement and then cycle with mechanism to ratchet up as possible, but at least not to backslide on the commitment. So this is part of the negotiation now, you know, for Paris. Backsliding is already in the text right now. Do you think it's fairly certain that it will stay? No backsliding, I mean. That's the objective, yes, of course. We are encoding that you can backslide. Anders, you had wanted to... Yes, something that I think is extremely important from Paris is actually a kind of system for transparency and accountability because that will be important for the process that will follow on. Of course, nations might be able to take on ambitious targets and commitments or whatever you call it, but in the context of the general kind of achievement by the global community, I think this is key actually.  And so you've got the kind of positive circle here where you can actually somehow almost create a kind of competition between nations, but you cannot do that if they do not trust each other. Does anybody wanna talk a little bit about how do you build that trust? Anyone? I can chip in, I guess. I think one of the things that worried me in last December in Lima when there was a decision adopted about reviewing and basically enhancing accountability about mitigation before Paris. And at that stage, nothing much was adopted. It was quite difficult to get any process in place at that stage. And my worry would be that if this is replicated in Paris and if it's also replicated in, let's say, future negotiations where there's no strong accountability mechanisms what Anders was already referring to, I think that would significantly weaken the Paris Agreement in terms of implementing it. It would make it less feasible for domestic stakeholders to hold their own governments to account. And over time, I think it's gonna be more difficult to achieve the goals that we have in mind for the different countries. So I would see this as incredibly important. So I have a trick question. Is there such a thing as an agreement not worth signing? And what would make it not worth signing? Is there an agreement not worth signing? I think there is a case in the history of the COP where there was no conclusion. It was the Hague, I don't remember in which year. I'm not quite sure. The Hague, yes. Don't mention the Hague, as we say. Our analysis is that, we don't know, of course, but we are pretty optimistic on the fact that we will have an agreement because politically, the signals we get from all the participants, and including the biggest emitter and the big country, but not only them, is that we really want an agreement. I mean, there is an awareness of the risk of the urgency and I won't detail every country, but from China to India to the US. I mean, the statements are very clear. So politically we want an agreement, but after each country, it's interest in the negotiation and it's quite legitimate that they defend also their interest. So the agreement should be there. The question is the content and the agreement, you know? As you say, will the agreement itself be good, especially on transparency, which is clear? MRV, on adaptation, on finance, and the level of the ANDC. So, of course, we need to sign an agreement. I can't tell you that we can contemplate the idea of a failure in Paris where we would leave without anything because that would create a kind of post-COP depression for the entire system that would definitely be negative. So your question is, is any agreement is better than no agreement? You cannot answer that. You have to see the agreement when we'll be there. Andres, you want to turn in? Yeah, well, there is always a bottom line. However, and perhaps fortunately, that bottom line is seldom well-defined for different parties. But the thing is that some of the parties will have to actually go below its bottom lines. That's how a successful agreement is reached. So it's quite, I think it's quite constructive to be vague about the bottom line and not speculate too much about it in beforehand.  The US position has been that this agreement cannot be binding. The EU says it should be binding. How important is it for this agreement to be binding in your opinion? And I'll let anyone answer who would like to participate. I can perhaps start off. Well, I mean, for the EU, the bindingness is a key issue, of course. The next question is, what do we mean by binding? And then again, we go back to the issue of accountability and transparency, et cetera, et cetera. All these issues are linked to each other. The totality needs to be sufficiently clear and credible for all parties. And the bindingness is one part of that. I think it will be difficult to achieve something that reminds us of the Kyoto Protocol with its bindingness because, as you said, the United States will probably, and not only the United States, by the way, will definitely oppose to that. But we need a certain degree of bindingness and I hope that the parties will be able to, in their wisdom, define that in a good way. Harro, I know this is an issue of interest to you. So as an international lawyer, I cannot say that the bindingness does not matter. That this is basically how I've been trained and how I've been indoctrinated, I would say. At the same time, of course, I understand the realities. And I think I can only agree with what Anders is saying. It's legal form can be important, but it's only one way of conveying the credibility of what countries are pledging, of what countries are doing. So it can be important for civil society, for sure. It can be important for business actors to get a signal that, indeed, countries are serious about it, but it's not the only way of conveying the credibility of their commitments. So I think that would be my first point. The other thing that is quite important to get clear is that a legally binding deal, I'm expecting a legally binding deal, but I do not expect necessarily legally binding targets. So the contributions to INDCs that we've been talking about, I do not necessarily expect them to be legally binding, especially because some countries, including the United States, would have significant difficulties in getting us through their domestic systems. All right, another issue that has been brought up and that I think is very important to a lot of parties is finance. And the ambassador mentioned that in his introduction. I'm wondering how important is finance and what exactly do we need? Or I mean, I don't know that we can specify in complete detail, but what is a must-have here on finance to make this agreement viable? Sivin, you look interested in answering that, but ambassador too, so... I'm actually interested in a refill. I talk a lot. You can go first. If you want a message. Well, but to repeat what I've said, finance is definitely very important. The green climate fund was the first result and if we hadn't been able to create this GCF, frankly, it would have been a big problem on the road to Paris. So it's there. No, it has to be more than operational. It has to create, to launch projects. Then we need to give reassurances on the $100 billion, which is a complex negotiation. Maybe it in Warsaw, in Lima, we need some intermediary target for 2017, 2018 and so on. But it's more than that, you know? And it's there the link with the action agenda. What we need, and we have started to do that is to mobilize the actors of private finance, you know? So as to be credible when we say that we want to shift the fundings from the carbon project to the non-carbon project. And you have many initiatives, including in this country with pension fund, AP4 and so on. And they work together to send this kind of signal. Because the money is there, you know? It's not a question of having the money in the world for investment, it's there. The question is to shift it from carbon to non-carbon project. So public money, but also a lot of private money. A lot of development money, I mean, all the national agency, the AFD in France, CIDA in Sweden, all of them. But also the World Bank, the regional bank, are having clear program to shift their money from carbon to non-carbon. So it's a mix of all that. But we need to convince the developing country that they will get the money for mitigation and even more for adaptation, perhaps. Yeah, I think it is the only thing I think that can risk that we will not have a deal in Paris is if we can't have a credible money on the table to capitalize the Green Climate Fund and other financing mechanisms. That is the primary way also to see that we reflect differentiating responsibilities. We can't do that for the INDCs, we can put some pressure on it. And personally, I think it would be extremely important that we include also financing commitments in the INDCs. This was one of the hot topics in Lima, where I know the EU had a different position in the US. But I think that would have been something, would have been a very strong signal because when we talk about building trust, is it one thing that developing countries remember is all the promises of overseas development aids and the little fulfillment that has been. So it's easy to promise, but the track record is not good. So transparency, but also review mechanisms for the financing, I think is essential for a successful and ambitious Paris Agreement. Anders? I mean, it's clear that financing will be pivotal, of course, and that a hundred billion dollars is a substantial chunk of money, really, of course. But still I have to allow myself a little reflection that about six trillion dollars are invested each year, or should be invested each year in things like energy, land use, urban development, each year, and it's the direction of these investments that will really decide our future. And of course, these hundred billions that we will manage within the context of the climate change convention will be important. Perhaps they can have a very important catalyzing effect on other larger money, but we shouldn't, I think it is a problem for the climate change negotiations that they are bogged down into fairly small issues, even though, of course, a hundred billion dollars is a large chunk of money, but still six trillion. I mean, during the next coming 40 or 50 years or so, humanity has to build as much city as we have built so far in our whole history. That's the challenge, and that's what we are going to measure against. Thank you. Sorry, just one word. I think it's very important to take this occasion to relaunch the debate on innovative financing. You know, that's something which is very dear to the heart of France, or feeling that if you want to find public money for the post-2015 goals, plus for fighting climate change, the national budget probably won't be enough. So we need additional innovative financing. You know, we have made some proposals, including in the EU on a tax on international financial transaction. It's a debate that has been developing for decades, but I think it's very much linked to also the climate change debate. So I have a couple more questions I want to ask you. Actually, I could ask you about 20 questions, but I have about two that I'm going to discipline myself down to, but I also wanted to encourage the audience. If you are interested in asking a question, I don't know where my colleague Anna went. She's there.  We probably won't be able to take a lot of questions, and it will be very important for people to keep their questions short, but we will try to accommodate as many as we can. Oh, okay, anyway, raise your hand, and somebody will find you. But anyway, I want to ask Sivan very directly, how important is it to address equity explicitly in this agreement? Bless you, Marion. That's a topic near and dear to my heart. And what I'd say is that, oh, equity will be addressed explicitly. There's no question about that. We can have full confidence. The question is, is it going to be, once again, the contentious, heated, divisive, rote invocations of abstract equity principles, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, or is it going to be something productive? Can it be something productive? And I would sort of turn the question around and say, can we have an agreement? Can we have an effective agreement if we don't have a productive discussion about equity? One of the things that's inescapably really part of the structure of the climate problem is that it is a global commons problem, and commons problems require cooperative solutions. None of us can solve our own climate problem by reducing our own individual emissions. We need to somehow induce reciprocal action in other countries, like Anders Tortasen said. We need some kind of a virtuous cycle of getting countries to together step forward and take deeper and deeper and more ambitious actions. So I think we have to have some kind of discussion, some kind of explicit discussion, some kind of productive discussion. It's not a discussion that can happen just in the UNFCCC. It's not necessarily a discussion that needs to lead to a table of numbers and top-down allocations for countries, but we have to have a discussion linked to discussions about transparency and monitoring and a better understanding of what steps other countries are actually taking, what level of efforts are other countries actually putting forward. How does that compare to their responsibility and to their capability and to their other competing priority development needs? And only by that having that kind of discussion both within the international forum, but also domestically within civil society and within constituencies, within government can, I think, we'll be able to solve the problem. Thank you. Do we have anybody who's already, okay, can we? Okay, while we get to you, you will ask your question in a second, but I wanna ask you one more question and it is what role do initiatives outside of the UNFCCC have to play in building ambition before Paris and after Paris? And this is something I don't know if Ambassador, you'd like to touch on this. I know that I want your NOLA as well to provide some. I've already said a few words on that, so perhaps someone else would want, but. Okay, I start. Oh, that's great. Well, yeah, and this is fantastic because we had a failed agreement in Copenhagen and what has happened in Copenhagen. Millions and multitudes of initiatives around the world in cities, companies, countries doing things. So all this has happened without us having an agreement in place. I really want to see one in Paris. I think that will build momentum even further, but the important thing is this process that we have sort of the symbolic functions of the negotiations, which spurs all these initiatives, creates incentives, it's a meeting place, we share best practices. I think it's a fantastic development since Copenhagen. We were very depressed after Copenhagen. I think we come a long way and all that has happened outside. A lot of it has happened outside the UNFCCC. It has happened outside countries. Countries have been important, but also outside countries. So all that we have seen so far, I would say, is a result of very much non-state actors in combination and in partnership with states. So imagine what will happen after Paris if we get a positive momentum from there. But that's why I said it's not so important what the agreement is. My answer to your question a while ago is there an agreement not worth having? No, because as long as we can have a process, seeing that there is a momentum in the process, it will spur all these initiatives and that creates hope, I think. How are we going to jump in? Just briefly, I agree with Bureau Laudat that the momentum and it's great. We have actions by cities, by companies, by civil society, and it's great to see all that mushrooming at that moment. And I think even more will happen in the run-up to Paris and in Paris. Just one note of caution. And if we go back to 2002, similar process, in this case it was Johannesburg, a lot of type II public-private partnerships were initiated. And a few years down the line, some of these have performed quite well, but others were not really performing that well. Some websites didn't even exist anymore. Basically, whole initiatives disappeared. The point that I'm trying to make is, yes, we're holding governments and the Union of Triple C to quite high standards of what it needs to achieve. While I would not suggest to hold all this non-state action to the same standards, it's important that we monitor and follow what is happening. The commitments at the Ban Ki-moon Summit, are they actually being followed up on? How well will they function a few years down the line? So we need to think about what is happening there as well. Great, thank you. Sir? Peter Pert from the European Commission, joint research center.  A very simple question, particularly to the ambassador and the French presidency. Have you, I like the concept of late lessons, that you go back and see in old processes what failed and how one can learn from what failed in the old. Have you gone back to the Copenhagen process and analyzed in detail and see what didn't work there? Why didn't Copenhagen meet the big expectations we had for Copenhagen in 2010? And how have you adjusted your current process for Paris so not to make the same mistakes again? Thank you for the question. The answer is yes. Immediately when we have decided to be a candidate, and we were the only candidate to host the COP 21, by the way, it was the easiest diplomatic victory in our history. But of course, yes, we studied what happened and at that time I was negotiator and we went to Denmark and we went to Mexico also because as you know, you cannot discuss Copenhagen without discussing Cancun. And we don't have time to discuss Copenhagen. You have hundreds of books which have been written by the people who took part in that. So I think it's very well known. But we don't have this black and white vision of Copenhagen. We don't consider Copenhagen to be a complete failure. There were many positive things from Copenhagen, the fact that all the emerging countries for the first time tabled some voluntary commitment. So perhaps there were purely voluntary, there were very different, but it was politically a very strong signal. But of course, it was more the global impression that people had when they saw the head of state the last days of the summit that creating the feeling of a failure. And afterwards, we worked a lot with the Mexican team to see how they put back the process on track before Cancun. And the answer was informal meetings, a lot of informal meeting, reduced format, 40 people, but open and transparent. Which mean we invite only the main participants, but if someone else want to come in, we invite him to. So to be sure that nobody feels rejected and neglected. And we make a report in the formal meeting on what we discussed in the informal meeting. And that's what we are trying to do at this moment. So I don't know if it will work. But yes, the main lesson of Copenhagen was first of all, don't, I don't know what the decision of my head of state will be. So I don't want to be premature, but the COP are ministerial meeting, which doesn't mean that we don't need the leaders at one stage, either before the COP into G20 or in ad hoc meeting, or at the beginning of the COP, but probably not the last three days of the COP to negotiate the text of 120 page, because it's a recipe probably for failure. So that's one of the lessons we took. And the second one is really be transparent and to have the trust of everybody. But if you want to be efficient, it means also to balance the formal and the informal meeting. Thank you, Ambassador. One more question, and that's all the time we have unfortunately. Okay, hi. My name is George DeHoyer. I'm with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I was at the embassy in Benin in West Africa. And this meeting is about bridging science and policy, and that's what we tried to support there. It was supporting a national water institute, but unfortunately due to a fraud case that we had, we had to stop our financing. And it shows how vulnerable support to national institutes can be. Nina had a very interesting conclusion, where she said we need to prioritize national monitoring over international reporting. And I think that's very important. You need to support national governments to make the decisions on climate change. They have to have information and they have to have policy advice at a national level. Now, how can you support that and how can you secure that such capacity develops? I think it's possible, but it needs international support. I think SEI could be a very important actor in that, coaching and securing quality of these national institutions as can similar institutes. In the Netherlands we also have a few. In order to enable that, I think it should be possible to finance such institutions directly. And there the term international or global public good comes into play, because you need to have a way of financing directly such institutions. And my proposal would be to you to discuss that option to see if such a concept could work in order to support these very bright national scientists to do their work for their national governments. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, rather than give you an opportunity to respond, I have to ask you to wrap up, because otherwise we will somehow be made to vaporize. But I wanted to ask you one final question as you say, as you finish. And it is, what is your greatest hope for these negotiations? So let's end on a positive note. And Sivan, would you like to start? Sure. I don't envy the negotiators. This is a very tough challenge for them. And a spectacular stunning success that impresses everyone isn't likely. So my greatest hope is that whatever happens in Paris, civil society stays energized, stays mobilized, because negotiators ultimately are operating within a very narrow latitude of what their constituents permit them to do. And what we need is a constituency, ultimately that's demanding much more ambitious climate action. So my greatest hope is that this is an opportunity for civil society to gain rather than lose energy. Great. Gernola? Well, it is that the intended nationally determined contribution will be detailed full of examples so that we can start to comparing and seeing what different countries choose as the best way forward as a platform for continued discussion. So I think it would be great if we have 195 countries with detailed plans on how they intend to tackle climate change and include that the rich countries specify their financial commitments for the capacity building that you just asked for, for example. So we'll answer that question as well. Thank you. Harro? I guess my greatest hope would be that Paris enables a shift of focus towards the action or the levels where the action is actually happening and primarily the national level to some extent also the non-state level, but it's allowing a shift of focus to a toward basically national level action and getting into more concrete detail of what is happening on the ground. Great. Thank you. Anders? I can of course only agree with what has been said already. A good deal of course and ambitious, et cetera. Maybe something beside this, which I think is extremely important and perhaps even, well, from now on, is that we get, we instill a kind of conviction, a feeling in the international community that it is doable, you know, that it is possible to reconcile the development with a steep, precipitous of lowered emissions, really. I think this would be something extremely important. So I'm very hopeful for the technological development that is going on right now. And perhaps, and this will perhaps be one of the beauties of a big international political process like this, that this can somehow, this technological development and the development of the civil society, et cetera, can somehow be transformed also into political action in Paris and onwards. Great, thank you. Ambassador? Well, there have been many references to the management of expectations. So I need to be cautious because the presidency really has to balance. We need to be ambitious, you know, that that's a role to push and to say we want the highest possible commitment before Paris and we want the best and the most ambitious text and so on. If not, we wouldn't play a role as presidency. If we just say, well, please negotiate and we'd wait for that. But at the same time, of course, we don't want after Paris the result is not exactly what we would all hope because it would be a compromise, you know. It's a consensus negotiation between 195 negotiations, a delegation. So it would be a compromise. The most ambitious possible compromise. But if we create too many expectations, of course, there could be a feeling of desperation in Paris. So my wish for Paris is that we have a result and a deal of which we can all collectively be proud of to have worked together, you know. And it's very important. And that would be a very important step forward and on the basis of this result that we could continue to build together for the future. The government and the civil society, the companies. I think that's the goal that we can all aspire to. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please give a big round of applause for him.


We're trekking pals Habiba and Alex and for the last few weeks we have been calling Alaska home working from our little tiny Airbnb during the week and hitting the hiking trails during the weekends exploring the last frontier challenging ourselves learning and appreciating the opportunity to escape the heat of the desert. Today's adventure is taking us to a gorgeous port city in southern Alaska called Seward. Seward is known for being a hot spot for commercial fishing as well as the gateway to Kenai Fjords National Park where glaciers flow from the hardened ice field into coastal fjords. So we're checking a couple of shops and fishing charters in this area. This is the famous spot where you will go on a fishing charter come back here and you will take a picture with whatever you caught caught at Seward Alaska with probably a big fish hanging on the hooks there. There is a cleaning station here to clean all the fish and then the view from here is really nice. Bubba, you excited? Let's go. Very pretty view of Mount Marathon. You see otters just swimming and enjoying the weather. Did you see them? Yeah, I got a picture too. It really was interesting. He was just kind of like sliding through the water. It's going so wild on me today with the humidity and this is the best that I can come up with for right now. But we are going to the sea life center here in Seward. We were told all the good stuff about it. They do have a bunch of animals rescued for travel. So yeah, let's check it out. There's an observation deck outside to check whales which will be very neat. I know that Alex really wants to see some whales on this trip. This is a very good cheat sheet behind me. How long some mammals can hold their breath underwater? So we're looking at polar bears about one to three minutes. Humans usually want two minutes with the word record of 20 minutes and then orca whale 12 minutes, sea lions 12 minutes, humpback whale 15 to 30. We have the deepest human dive of 701 feet and then the deep down where it gets really dark and lonely and cold is where the sperm whale thrive and they can hold their breath up to 90 minutes. We're going to check our way together with the gopro. Ready for 11. Area is also famous for a lot of gold mines. I'm just going to show you a little thing here. 24 karat gold. We're still starving right now and we're going to go to a restaurant here called Chinooks. But uh yeah, just time for some grub. What have you got Alex? What's up? Some fried halibut. Haribu? Haribu? Then fries. I just need to demonstrate. You got some halibut, rice and broccoli. I'm jealous of your plate. You can have some. On a memorable day exploring the streets of Seward, it's time to check into our place for the night with one of the most epic views of the ocean. Thank you all for watching. You're checking pals Habiba and Alex and we will see you very soon on the next episode.