Context and question: Current circulating in one antenna generally induces a voltage across the feedpoint of nearby antennas or antenna elements. The mathematics presented below are useful in analyzing the electrical behaviour of antenna arrays, where the properties of the individual array elements (such as half wave dipoles) are already known. If those elements were widely separated and driven in a certain amplitude and phase, then each would act independently as that element is known to. However, because of the mutual interaction between their electric and magnetic fields due to proximity, the currents in each element are not simply a function of the applied voltage (according to its driving point impedance), but depend on the currents in the other nearby elements. Note that this now is a near field phenomenon which could not be properly accounted for using the Friis transmission equation for instance.
What are the mathmatic useful towards?
Answer: electrical behaviour
Context and question: Seattle was also the home base of impresario Alexander Pantages who, starting in 1902, opened a number of theaters in the city exhibiting vaudeville acts and silent movies. His activities soon expanded, and the thrifty Greek went on and became one of America's greatest theater and movie tycoons. Between Pantages and his rival John Considine, Seattle was for a while the western United States' vaudeville mecca. B. Marcus Priteca, the Scottish-born and Seattle-based architect, built several theaters for Pantages, including some in Seattle. The theaters he built for Pantages in Seattle have been either demolished or converted to other uses, but many other theaters survive in other cities of the U.S., often retaining the Pantages name; Seattle's surviving Paramount Theatre, on which he collaborated, was not a Pantages theater.
Who was the architect who built a number of theaters in the Seattle area?
Answer: B. Marcus Priteca
Context and question: In turn, according to Kozinski's analysis, the contemporary rule of binding precedent became possible in the U.S. in the nineteenth century only after the creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing. The rule gradually developed, case-by-case, as an extension of the judiciary's public policy of effective judicial administration (that is, in order to efficiently exercise the judicial power). The rule of precedent is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as a matter of fundamental fairness, and second, because in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and underlying public policies), which in turn would create hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability, and thereby undermine the rule of law.
What made binding precedent a possibility?
Answer:
creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing