Classification of the factorial functions of Eulerian binomial and
(精品)Unit8Classification

Can you complete the categories?
• When classifying, don’t leave anyone or anything out.
• Look for obvious missing elements.
• In “What kind of students are there in your math class?”
__1. Types of autos:
a. SUV, b. pickup, c. economy
__2. Types of transport:
a. land, b. train, c. air, d. water
__3. Types of rivers:
a. dangerous, b. short, c. wide __4. Types of drugs: a. stimulant, b. illegal, c. depressant __5. Types of colleges: a. private, b. famous, c. public __6.Types of courses: a. year-long, b. half-term, c. math __7.Types of housing: a. rooms, b. cheap, c. apartments
Which elements don’t belong?
One large part of any IQ test checks the ability to see what fits in classes.
In the following lists, which item does not belong?
分类法职业英文作文

分类法职业英文作文Title: The Classification of Occupations。
In the dynamic landscape of the modern workforce, the classification of occupations plays a crucial role in understanding and navigating various professions. Thisessay aims to delve into the significance of occupational classification, its methodologies, and its implications.At its core, occupational classification serves as a systematic method of categorizing different types of jobs based on various criteria such as skills, education, duties, and industry. The primary purpose of such classification is to provide clarity and organization within the labor market, facilitating effective communication, research, policy-making, and workforce planning.One commonly utilized system of occupational classification is the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), developed by the InternationalLabour Organization (ILO). ISCO categorizes occupationsinto broad groups based on skill level and specialization. These groups are further subdivided into detailed occupations, providing a comprehensive framework for classifying diverse professions across different sectors and regions.Another widely recognized classification system is the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system, employed in the United States. SOC categorizes occupations based on similarities in job duties and, to some extent, education and training requirements. It offers a hierarchical structure that allows for the aggregation of similar occupations into broader categories while maintaining granularity at lower levels.The significance of occupational classification extends beyond mere categorization. It serves as a foundationaltool for various stakeholders, including policymakers, researchers, educators, employers, and job seekers.For policymakers, occupational classification informslabor market analysis, policy formulation, and resource allocation. By understanding the distribution ofoccupations across different sectors and regions, policymakers can develop targeted interventions to address skill shortages, unemployment, and labor market disparities.Researchers leverage occupational classification to conduct studies on employment trends, wage disparities, occupational mobility, and workforce demographics. By analyzing data based on standardized occupation codes, researchers can generate insights into labor market dynamics and inform evidence-based policy decisions.Educators utilize occupational classification to design curriculum, develop training programs, and aligneducational pathways with the demands of the labor market. By aligning educational offerings with the skills required for specific occupations, educators can enhance the employability of students and bridge the gap between academia and industry.Employers rely on occupational classification tostructure job roles, define skill requirements, and establish career progression pathways within organizations. By clearly defining job categories and their corresponding skill sets, employers can effectively recruit, train, and retain talent, contributing to workforce productivity and organizational success.For job seekers, occupational classification serves as a roadmap for career planning and exploration. By understanding the different types of occupations available and their respective requirements, individuals can make informed decisions about their career paths, skill development, and job search strategies.However, it is essential to recognize the limitations and challenges associated with occupational classification. The rapidly evolving nature of work, technological advancements, and globalization pose challenges to traditional classification systems, which may struggle to keep pace with emerging occupations and changing skill requirements.Moreover, occupational classification may oversimplify the complexity of certain professions, overlooking nuances in job roles, tasks, and skill sets. As a result, some occupations may be miscategorized or inadequately represented within existing classification frameworks, leading to discrepancies in labor market analysis and policy formulation.In conclusion, occupational classification plays a pivotal role in organizing and understanding the diverse array of professions within the labor market. By providing a systematic framework for categorizing occupations, it facilitates communication, research, policy-making, and workforce planning. However, ongoing efforts are needed to refine classification systems, adapt to evolving labor market dynamics, and ensure the accurate representation of all occupations.。
高中英语状语从句课件

The function of the advisory clause is to provide detailed information about the action, state, or condition being described by the main clause It typically answers questions like how, where, when, or why
04 Ellipsis and inversion of advisory clauses
Analysis of Omitting Phenomenon and Its Causes
• Omitting phenomenon: In the process of advisory clause expression, there may be an omission of some words or phrases, which is commonly caused by the presence of language expression, the omission of unnecessary information, or the ellipsis of graphical elements
03
Description
The objective advisory clause is typically introduced by a proposal such as "in," "at," "on," etc., and it provides additional information about the location or situation in which an event occurs
写作教程第二版(邹申)-Unit 8 Education

• According to Xiao Li, the fifteen students in his class fall into three groups. Seven of them work hard and study well. They always get good marks in examinations and are often praised by the teachers. Li calls them “good students”. The monitor, the secretary of the Youth League branch, and the captain of the class volleyball team, are quick in finding out what their fellow students are interested in or what they should do 1. How does Xiao Li classify his classmates? as a group. They always organize proper activities 2. How does he organize his writing? at the proper time, so Li calls them “good organizers”. Four other students are very kind to their classmates, always ready to lend them a helping hand. They help to clean the classroom and the corridor even when they are not on duty. Li says that they are “good fellows”. “What about yourself?” someone asks him. “I’m a group by myself—a good observer.”
分类法英语作文

分类法英语作文Title: The Art of Classification。
In the realm of language and literature, classification serves as a fundamental tool for organizing thoughts, concepts, and ideas. Through classification, we bring order to the seemingly chaotic landscape of information, enabling clearer communication and deeper understanding. In this essay, we will explore the significance of classificationin English composition, its various forms, and its impact on conveying meaning effectively.Classification, at its core, involves grouping similar elements together based on shared characteristics or attributes. In English composition, this practice manifests in numerous ways, each serving a unique purpose in shaping the structure and coherence of written work.One common form of classification in English composition is through the categorization of ideas orarguments. When constructing an argumentative essay, for instance, writers often organize their points into distinct categories, each supporting a specific aspect of thecentral thesis. By systematically presenting evidence and reasoning within these categories, writers can strengthen their arguments and guide readers through a logical progression of thought.Similarly, in expository writing, classification plays a crucial role in presenting information in a clear and comprehensible manner. Whether discussing different types of literary genres or categorizing historical events based on their significance, writers rely on classification to structure their content in a manner that aids comprehension and retention.Furthermore, classification extends beyond the realm of ideas and arguments to encompass the classification of language itself. In English composition, words and phrases are categorized based on various criteria such as parts of speech, semantic relationships, and syntactic structures. This linguistic classification not only facilitateseffective communication but also enables writers to convey precise meaning and nuance through their choice of language.Moreover, classification serves as a powerful tool for enhancing the coherence and cohesion of written discourse. By grouping related ideas or concepts together, writers create a sense of unity within their compositions, allowing readers to follow the flow of thought more easily. This organizational clarity not only improves readability butalso enhances the overall impact of the writing.In addition to its practical utility, classificationalso fosters critical thinking and analytical skills in English composition. By engaging in the process of categorization, writers must evaluate the similarities and differences between various elements, discerning patterns and relationships that might not be immediately apparent. This process of cognitive classification not only enriches the writing process but also cultivates a deeper understanding of the subject matter at hand.Furthermore, classification encourages writers toconsider alternative perspectives and viewpoints, fostering a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to their writing. By exploring different ways of categorizing information, writers can uncover new insights and connections, enriching their analysis and broadening their horizons.In conclusion, classification serves as a cornerstone of English composition, facilitating the organization, coherence, and clarity of written work. Whether categorizing ideas, structuring arguments, or classifying language itself, the art of classification empowers writers to communicate effectively and persuasively. By embracing the principles of classification, writers can elevate their compositions to new heights, engaging readers and conveying meaning with precision and impact.。
分类学中的虚假分类和错误判定(英文文献)

УКРАЇНСЬКИЙБОТАНІЧНИЙЖУРНАЛThe discussions on acceptability of paraphyletic taxa – i.e . on cladistic («phylogenetic») vs . synthetic («evolutionary») classifications – are going on already for half a century both in botanical/zoological as «general biological» publications [Bock (1974), Bottjer (1980), Brummitt (2003, 2006), Christoffersen (1995), Crowson (1971), H örandl (2006, 2007), Mayr (1974), Nordal & Stedje (2005), Podani 2010, Richardson & Oberprieler (2007), Rieppel (2009), Stuessy (1997), Wiley (1981) are but few examples], but, unfortunately , from the cladists' side the same reasonings (mostly of philosophical or «technical» nature) are being repeated, with almost full disregard of the factual, biological meaning of the counter-arguments posed by the «synthetists» (whose articles are usually cited rather selectively …), what on the one hand allows avoiding the necessity to answer rationally to the «inconvenient» questions, and on the other hand creates the false appearance of nearly universal acceptance of cladistic dogmas in classification. The recent papers by Zachos (2014) and Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) are «school-bookish» examples of such – to use the latter author's(Schmidt-Lebuhn, 2012) formulation – fallacies and false premises, providing an excellent opportunity for the attempt to clarify the deep basic «ideological» differences (as to, e.g ., what biological classification is for?) that prevent understanding of the very meaning of each other's argumentation. Thus, in the following text I will refer specifically to their misconceived reproaches, using them as a framework for discussion.To avoid confusion, I begin with two important but notoriously neglected or misinterpreted terminological questions.(1) I am discussing here cladistic classifications , not cladistic principles of phylogenetic reconstructions . Zachos' (2014) «plea against the dissociation of taxonomy and phylogenetics » is not necessary , since no such danger (at least from the side of «synthetists») really exists: the very epithet «synthetic» refers to their close as sociation! But association (requirement for taxonomy to be compatible with phylogeny) does not mean identity: taxonomy and phylogenetics are closely related, but different fields of research, and their results need not, and should not , be the same – otherwise one of them would be simply superfluous.doi: 10.15407/ukrbotj73.01.003R.B. HO ŁY ŃSKIPL-05822 Milan ówek, ul. Graniczna 35, skr. poczt. 65, Polandrholynski@o2.plFALLACIES AND FALSE PREMISES: A PLEA AGAINST THE DISSOCIATION OF TAXONOMY FROM BIOLOGYHo ły ński R.B. Fallacies and false premises: a plea against the dissociation of taxonomy from biology. Ukr. Bot. J., 2016, 73(1): 3—10.Abstract. The virtual extinction of the doctrinally phenetic school in biological systematics has left two principal competitors on the battlefield: adherents of the synthetic («evolutionary») approach argue for classifications based on all available (reconstructed pattern of evolutionary development as well as its observed genetic/phenetic results) evidence, whereas according to the advocates of cladistic («phylogenetic») principles taxonomy should exactly mirror the phylogenetic branching pattern, with no regard to anything else. The debate, often vehement and harsh, lasts already for half a century , but mostly without mutual understanding: the concrete biological arguments posed by synthetists are typically being left unaddressed by cladists who, instead, respond with some preconceived philosophical concepts or formally technical divagations. This paper is an attempt to turn the discussion back to biology by replying specifically , one by one, to the points raised in some recent, very typical of cladists' attitude, papers by Zachos (2011, 2014) and Schmidt-Lebuhn (2012, 2014), and evaluating their claims in light of observable or deducible biological facts.Key words: taxonomy , classification, cladistics, synthetic approach, paraphyly , holophyly , predicting power, information content.© R.B. HO ŁY ŃSKI, 2016(2) I strongly suggest (and do in this and my other publications — e.g. Hołyński, 2005, 2010, 2011 etc.) to avoid application of the misleading «marketing-motivated» epithets «evolutionary» vs.«phylogenetic» to «classification» or «taxonomy» (all – except the currently almost never used strictly phenetic – are both evolutionary and phylogenetic: nothing can be «evolutionary» not being «phylogenetic» or vice versa!) and replace them with the adequate terms: «synthetic» (synthetising total available evidence: on genealogy and results of evolution) and «cladistic» (based exclusively on a hypothesized branching pattern), respectively.Another terminological question, reinterpretation of which by Hennig (1950) and his followers has introduced enormous confusion making a meaningful dispute very difficult, is the definition of monophyly. The term was coined by Haeckel in the early 1860s (Ashlock; 1984) simply to denote common ancestry, and for the next hundred years it was universally so interpreted: a group is monophyletic if all included taxa have a common ancestor; it is polyphyletic if there is no single common ancestor. Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) tries to ridicule this definition [«The currently preferred assumption appears to be that any two randomly chosen species on Earth have a common ancestor»] but I find it difficult to believe that he himself takes such reproach seriously: pre-Hennigian biologists were, and modern «synthetists» [I propose to introduce this term – in lack of another adequate – for the followers of the synthetic school] are, not idiots and used the criticized formulation simply as a convenient, easily understandable shortcut for the otherwise unnecessarily lengthy and cumbersome description («the last common ancestor of all members of the group and all intermediate taxa between them and the common ancestor»)!Stuessy & Hörandl's (2014) «claim» that paraphyly is a type of monophyly is by Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) evaluated as «simply factually wrong»; instead (according to him) «there is very little difference between paraphyla and polyphyla», because it is «trivially possible to select a non-monophyletic group of extant species and call it either paraphyletic or polyphyletic merely by changing the inferred ancestral state of the character used to diagnose it». This is an excellent example of the type of the abstract formal logic used by cladists as arguments with disregard of the biological reality. Indeed, «by changing the ancestral state» of the common ancestor of birds and mammals a cladist can make homoioterms [birds+mammals] «paraphyletic» in relation to some groups of «polyphyletic» poikiloterm reptiles, but living (recent or extinct) organisms are neither products of artistic imagination nor artificial constructs whose «character states» can be changed according to our convenience: they are real plants or animals with real, independent of our preferences, traits. It is indeed easy to juggle (as done by Schmidt-Lebuhn) with a «set of four plant species» arbitrarily defined as white- or yellow-flowered, also arbitrarily assuming accelerated or delayed transformation; however, biological reality is not arbitrary, characters of (terminal or ancestral) taxa cannot be changed at will but must be either based on observation or (as it is usually the case with extinct organisms) inferred from available evidence (e.g. phylogenetic reconstruction), and consequently they are objectively (according to our best actual knowledge) either paraphyletic or polyphyletic. So, «simply factually wrong» is the alleged «very little difference between» paraphyly and polyphyly: while the former is indeed «a type of monophyly» [«denotes the situation where all the ancestors of any member of a group, back to – and inclusive of – the last common ancestor, belong to that group, but one or more side-branches do not; so, it is the antithesis of holo phyly, while that of poly phyly is mono phyly (including both holo- and paraphyly)» – Hołyński, 2011], the opposite conclusion of Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) is evidently a result of cladists' unability to distinguish between the more inclusive term «monophyly» and more restrictive «holophyly».Another example of «fallacies and false premises» is Schmidt-Lebuhn's (2014) assertion that «the existence of long branches is an illusion brought about by extinction and an incomplete knowledge of the fossil record», as «any newly discovered intermediate species and, especially, intermediate fossil breaks the long branches». In fact, such discovery may eliminate the effect of long branch attraction in phylogenetic reconstruction, but the length of the branch [«evolutionary divergence» of Stuessy & Hörandl (2014): the distance – in terms of the sum of genetic (and consequently phenetic) transformations – between its base and the tip of the longest «twig»] will remain unchanged. From the taxonomic perspective, the intermediates would probably make the definitions of the respective taxa more «fuzzy … (i.e. without crisp boundaries)» (Podani, 2009), but «if we wish our classifications to be natural, we must accept the fact and fit the ‘fuzziness’ into them (or, for purely practical reasons, divide the real, fuzzy ‘border zones’ by admittedly conventional ‘demarcation lines’ … such is the ‘nature of the Nature’ that natural boundaries are rarely ‘crisp’!» (Hołyński, 2011). It is obviously true that «strikingmacroscopic morphological differences are not necessarily correlated with similar differences in biochemistry or microstructure», but very often they are (as evidenced e.g. by supraspecific taxa established in the 19th century whose validity has usually been confirmed by modern anatomical, biochemical and/or phylogenetic studies), and anyway synthetic classifications – contrary to cladistic ones! – are (at least in principle) based on total available evidence, not just on one or two «striking» traits.And so we have arrived at what Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) – justly! – evaluates as the «central argument» in the discussion: the question of information content. According to him (and this is the usual claim posed by cladists) the «phylogenetic system … obviously contains information about phylogenetic relationships». Yes, it obviously does! But is it the information provided by the classification? – evidently not: cladistic classification is a simple (usually inexact) translation of the cladogram, so «it is not cladistic classification that predicts genealogical relationships, but the opposite: cladistic classification is nothing more than the pattern of genealogical relationships (as previously reconstructed!) presented in words (taxon names)» (Hołyński, 2005); whereas, until the phylogenetic reconstruction has been done, no «information about … relationships» existed, thereafter the resulting cladogram presents it in much more exact and much more convenient form, so the cladistic classification is glaringly superfluous:«If we opt for paraphyletic grades such as Invertebrata and Pisces, then the system is ... at least noncommittal as to the branching sequences … of no use for anyone who needs that particular kind of information. On the other hand that particular kind of information can be clearly and unequivocally expressed in the form of a tree-like diagram. And since the tree does the job perfectly well, the arguments for a strictly genealogical arrangements are by no means compelling» (Ghiselin, 1997).«The primary goal of general purpose («natural») classification is to provide groupings of maximum predicting power: ‘high information content’ (i.e. highly correlated suites of characters)» (Jensen, 2009), so what about informations obtainable really from the classification(i.e., from the place of the taxon in the system), which can only be gained by the assumption that the traits (morphological, ecological, physiological, geographical or any other) of an animal or plant can be deduced from those of other members of the group? There are two possibilities: either (as in the case of e.g.Coleoptera, Trochilidae or Gorilla) the «cladistic» taxon is identical to that proposed by «synthetists» and so identical is also its information content, or they are different (as for Osteichthyes or Dinosauria) and the «predictive power» of the cladistic classification is (often drastically) lower and less reliable. What of use (except «few ‘synapomorphies’ important for phylogenetic analysis but usually trifling from any other point of view» – Hołyński, 2010) can be said of Latimeria on grounds of its belonging to the «Sarcopterygii» (or whichever name is attributed to the «non-fish» V ertebrata)? It «looks like a fish, tastes like a fish, behaves like a fish [not like a warbler, monkey, turtle or toad – RBH], and thus – in some legitimate, exceeding narrowly understood tradition, sense – it is a fish» (Gould, 1991).Cladists «usually adduce, as the paramount advantage, the fact that – while all deductions from a synthetic classification are «only approximate»(the information that an animal belongs to the Insecta strongly suggests, but does not prove, that it has three pairs of legs) – cladistic systems exactly«predict»genealogical relationships» (Hołyński, 2005); to support this reproach Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) «examines» the information content of the imaginary classification of four imaginary taxa: «Family A = (genus B, genus C, genus D, genus E)», and concludes that in «phylogenetic» interpretation the «B, C, D, and E are reciprocally monophyletic» and thus «the system obviously contains information about phylogenetic relationships» and that information «can be useful for downstream[what does it mean in this context? – RBH] studies in biogeography, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, plant breeding and various other fields». First of all, what is the really useful (even if only cladistic: restricted to the branching pattern) information in the «reciprocal monophyly» of B, C, D, and E? Is their true relationship B(C(DE)) or ((BE)(CD)), or D(B(CE)) or anything else? What makes them different genera (or why are they not further split)? Are they grouped into the «Family A» (to the exclusion of the – also «reciprocally monophyletic» – genera F, G, H and all the others) based on the fancy of the author (so what about «information content»?)? on some formal convention? or on the so scornfully excommunicated phenetic similarity? Even this imaginary example, specially invented by Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) to show the superiority of cladistic classifications, in fact makes it obvious that also strictly cladistic information is «translated» from the cladogram so inexactly as to be practically worthless. As to the «various other fields», I cannot imagine what important information of use for e.g. biogeography, biochemistry or plant breeding could be derived from the hypothesisof the taxa being «reciprocally ‘mono’phyletic» (i.e., to use the unambiguous term, holophyletic)? In what important respect the interpretation of distributional history or recent biogeographical pattern of, say, Hippopotamidae is dependent upon whether they are holo- or – as suggested by some recently proposed phylogenies – paraphyletic (in relation to Cetacea)? The only truly confusing and potentially misleading factor would be poly phyly, but this is not allowed by either «school»!Schmidt-Lebuhn's (2014) attempt to negate the information content of synthetic classifications [«Because the taxa in an evolutionary classification are partly defined based on common ancestry, it does not contain reliable information on phenetic similarity or dissimilarity either»] is also by no means convincing. The very formulation «partly based on common ancestry» is misleading, suggesting some contradiction between genealogical and phenetic aspects of synthetic classification, something like «some dissimilar taxa have been included based on phylogenetic relationships and some phylogenetically unrelated on grounds of similarity» – of course nothing like this is true: all «synthetic» taxa are strictly «phylogenetic» (no polyphyly is allowed), and only within this constraint phenetic similarity becomes decisive! Probably the Author refers to the situations where the genealogical constraint separates superficially similar groups like Bivalvia and Brachiopoda or ichthyosaurs and dolphins, but just in such situations similarity concerns only what he dismisses as «small but human eye-catching set of morphological characters». Good synthetic taxonomy – contrary to Schmidt-Lebuhn's (2014) accusation (and unlike cladistic systems, taking only one/two/three «synapomorphies» into consideration!) – is not based on «few striking macroscopic morphological differences» but on all available evidence, and such is almost by definition congruent with phylogeny, generally no contradiction could exist [«Arguably, even in the most striking cases of convergent evolution, the accumulation of differences overwhelmingly surpasses the development of similarities (albeit occasionally few superficial resemblances can make the appearance of the opposite). That is to say, the disparity between any two lineages always increases in time (the respective species are more different now, than their ancestors were at any time in the past) – «overall»convergence does not exist!» (Hołyński, 2005)].To sum up, the information derivable from both types of classification – like any scientific (or other) statement, whether presented as «fact», «theory», «hypothesis» or «supposition» – is more or less «unreliable» (possibly wrong) and limited (offering but a «subsample» of potentially knowable characteristics of the included taxa) – the difference lies in the «originality» (whether the classification is itself the source of information or is it only a redundant crippled «translation» of that provided by the cladogram), degree of reliability, and «amount» of the derivable («deducible», «predictable») data. In all three respects the synthetic classifications perform better: the degree of originality is here nearly 100% as compared to 0% for cladistic ones (where all informations derivable from classification is already present in the cladogram – but not the opposite!); reliability of the derivable genealogic information is usually somewhat higher (based on the same phylogenetic reconstruction but further verified phenetically); and information content (extending to all characteristics of the taxon vs. mere hypothesis on its holophyly) often simply incomparable!«A system containing a genus B that is paraphyletic to genus C» – argues Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) – «invites the end user to search for breeding partners to a species in B only among other members of B, potentially missing all its closest relatives». I am not convinced that breeders bother very much with classification or phylogeny, but if they do, the «invitation» to search mainly from among members of B would, in most cases, be perfectly right: reproductive isolation is largely based on, and so correlated with, the evolutionarily accumulated genetic and phenetic differences between taxa; the correlation is, of course, not absolute but anyway definitely positive, so an aberrant «offshoot» of the clade B, so much differentiated that it has been separated into a distinct genus (C), is almost certainly less appropriate as a breeding partner than are other members of B! The reproach (continuation of the above) that «it invites them to conduct a study on the biogeography or of character evolution in B, never realizing that none of this makes evolutionary sense without including C» is still less understandable: would the understanding of the geographical distribution or character evolution of true cormorants (Phalacrocorax) make less sense if their descendant, Galapagos flightless cormorant (Nannopterum harrisi), remains unknown? Of course we must know what are we speaking about: whether the object of our study is the genus Phalacrocorax in the «broad cladistic» (including «P.»harrisi), or synthetic (paraphyletic, excluding the Galapagoan offshoot), or «narrow cladistic» (P. carbo and its closest relatives, after splitting off – «to avoid paraphyly» – the«genera» Leucocarbo, Microcarbo etc.) meaning – any interpretation confusing these concepts must, naturally, «make no evolutionary [or any other…] sense», but this is a totally different question.Thus, first of all, there is the fundamental question of what is the aim of scientific research? Is it, as seems to be nowadays generally believed, the study of the real world, «systematic observation of facts and seeking to formulate general explanatory laws and hypotheses that could be verified empirically» (Garmonsway, 1969), or construction of abstract, philosophically perhaps sound but having little in common with observable reality, «ideal systems»? Should we study the genuine facts, or – as some mathematicians say – «interesting is not what the world is like, but what it should be like»(Lánczos Kornél, see Marx, 2000)? We are biologists, not mathematicians or philosophers, so – I hope, evidently – we are primarily interested in the real world, not in any idealistic utopia, and if so, arguments in our discussions should be based on observed facts, not on philosophical concepts.Therefore I will not enter into discussion with Zachos (2014) as to whether or not biological concept of taxa does or does not fit into any of the philosophical «types of group formation: classes and individuals»: for a non-philosopher classes are classes, individuals (Roman Hołyński, Donald Duck, the oak-tree in front of my window) are individuals, and taxa (Homo sapiens, Aves, Fagaceae) are taxa (distinctive, internally homogeneous groups of genealogically related organisms). Such groups do really exist and may be studied – there is no necessity (and little sense) to ask philosophers what attributes taxa should have: these attributes are open to empirical ascertainment by simple observation.Of course, «internally homogeneous» does not mean that every individual has every particular feature of the set making its taxon distinctive, so «if a female cat gave birth to a kitten with only one or two auditory ossicles or without hair» this will certainly not be considered a reason to exclude it from the class Mammalia. Paraphyletic taxa are not simply «defined by similarities (‘reptilian grade’)»: they are ultimately «defined» by their maximum information content (= predictive power), approached by similarities within common ancestry. But, as Zachos (2014) justly admitted, «taxa … are always hypotheses, and if and when these hypotheses are refuted …, then they will have to be replaced by a new taxonmic hypothesis. This is how science works, it is not a weakness of taxonomy but vital evidence of its scientific character», so even if (what, however, seems very unlikely…) he some time proves right in assertion that turtles are as «derived» (as distinctive) as birds, this would only mean that, in order to assure the maximum information content of the vertebrate classification, Chelonia should be «upgraded» to the rank equal to that of Aves – no problem in the frames of the synthetic system! By the way, while Zachos (2014) accuses «evolutionary taxonomists» of the «anthropocentric» belief in «progress in evolution», his evaluation of paraphyletic taxa as «grades» suggests that he himself is a believer: speaking of a «reptilian grade» means that Reptilia are considered higher (occupy a higher rung on the scala naturae) than representatives of «pre-reptilian» but lower that «post-reptilian grades» [grade:«degree of quality, rank etc.» – Garmonsway, 1969]…Apparently the central (anyway returning again and again) point in Zachos' (2014) argumentation is that taxa must be «non-arbitrary», «rigorously defined», while paraphyletic taxa are not. It is true, «definitions» of paraphyletic taxa are to some degree arbitrary – but so (indeed, even more so!) are cladistically formed holophyletic ones as well! «Taxa … are always hypotheses», and – having been formed according to other hypotheses – they cannot be anything else. In synthetic classifications taxa are recognized and delineated based on two hypotheses: the general, of monophyly («all the ancestors of any member of a group, back to – and inclusive of – the last common ancestor, belong to that group» – Hołyński, 2011), applicable to all taxa; and the specific, of maximum information content («the extent to which the (morphological, ecological, physiological, genetical, or any other)characteristics of an organism may be predicted from its placement in the system» – Hołyński, 2005), used to select which of the millions of monophyletic lineages should be demarcated as a genus, family, order etc. Cladists also define their taxa according to the phylogenetic hypothesis (that of holophyly), but their criteria to select the actual rank and limits (why this or that particular «node» in the basic cladogram, rather than one below – more «inclusive» – or one above, is «designated» to define the particular taxon) are left mysterious (surely, «there is no non-arbitrary way of defining it», predictive power or even superficial similarity being evidently unapplicable under cladistic dogmatism…).More importantly, the very demand of «rigorous» and «non-arbitrary» definitions is out of place: such exist only in mathematics and, perhaps, philosophy – as mentioned above, in nature everywhere (even in physics, though there they are relatively narrow) «fuzzyborder areas» dominate, and any attempt to «rigorous» delimitation must unavoidably be arbitrary. Indeed, as regards taxonomy, the very possibility to define taxa rigorously and non-arbitrarily would be the best imaginable proof that creationists are right: the theory of evolution is false…One of the notorious problems with cladistic «taxonomic ideology» is the glaring contradiction between the demand for a common ancestor and the dogma of its… non-existence («no taxon can be the ancestor of another taxon») because such ancestor would be by definition paraphyletic, and paraphyletic taxa by definition «do not exist»! Cladists usually carefully avoid this question, but if they nevertheless must invent some solution, one of the following two is offered. Some say that it is but a convention allowing to keep classifications «objective» [but what is the value of a convention (or objectivity) that is both illogical and contradictory to the observed reality: dinosaurs are evidently ancestors of birds, and the «trick» of «lumping» them together – «colibris are flying dinosaurs» – does not solve anything because the common ancestor of the so constructed Dinosauria sensu lato and its sister-group is also paraphyletic, and so back to the primaeval coacervate!?]. Another subterfuge is to exempt species from the ban on paraphyly («the concept of paraphyly does not apply to the species category»), so the «actual common ancestor is (or was) a species, but it does (did) not belong to any supraspecific subdivision of the descendant group» – again a destructive (making classification cripple, with millions – one for each «accepted» non-monotypic taxon! – of species «not belonging anywhere») and illogical «convention» designed only to defend the indefensibly harmful dogma [«That the common ancestor of insects, crustaceans, cheliceratans must have existed – does not matter: it did belong to the Arthropoda but not to any class, order, family, genus or species [once in Precambrium there lived a primitive arthropodan, say, Protarthropodus verus, member of the family Protarthropodidae, order Protarthropodomorpha, class Protarthropoda; later on some of its populations evolved further into divergent lineages, and at that very moment… the class, order, family, genus and species retroactively disappeared: not only they did not exist any more in Cambrium and thereafter, but their existence has been «erased» even from the Precambrian past!!!]. Maybe it is good philosophy, but good biology it is certainly not…» – Hołyński, 2005].Zachos (2014) accuses synthetists of adherence to the «pre-evolutionary» typological thinking and «historically fascinating philosophical but scientifically obsolete idea» of scala naturae ascending from «lower» to «higher» groups; in fact, just the cladistic classifications are evidently typological [«rigorously» based on particular (sets of) «important» characters («synapomorphies» – as contrasted to «unimportant plesiomorphies»)] and pre-evolutionary (indeed, even pre-scientific!). Synthetic taxonomy has nothing to do with scala naturae or «ranking» organisms according to the degree of their «lowerness» or «higherness» – instead, its basic assumptions are very simple: (1) «mono- (holo-, para-)-phyletic» means «having a common ancestor»; (2)if mono- (either holo- or para-)-phyletic taxa do exist, common ancestors must have also really existed; (3) such an ancestor was evidently a [group of] population[-s];(4) each population belongs to a series of hierarchically arranged («nested») taxa (species>genus>family etc.);(5) so, a common ancestor of two or more descendant taxa is a really (at least in the past) existing taxon;(6)that taxon is by definition paraphyletic; (7)thus, acceptance of paraphyletic taxa is logically unavoidable. And indeed, a great part (perhaps the majority) of natural (homogeneous in morphological, physiological, ecological, or any other respect, and distinct from other such groups) species, genera, families, orders etc. are paraphyletic (becoming natural only after exclusion of one or more «dissident» lineages descending from the same ancestor); even among the recent species paraphyly is a common situation (R oss, 2014).Thus, under closer examination all claims of superiority of cladistic classifications raised by Schmidt-Lebuhn (2014) and Zachos (2014) prove fallacious, all their reproaches against paraphyletic taxa based on false premises and/or biologically irrelevant abstract imaginary constructs. The best natural, general-purpose classification is that with the highest information content (and, consequently, of maximum predictive power: «prediction is the very hallmark of science – indeed, ... a science isn't really a science if it lacks the power to predict» – Eldredge, 1989), which in case of cladistic systems is, as regards branching pattern, no more than a redundant imperfect «translation» of what is easier and more exactly derivable from the respective cladogram, and in any other respect it is at most (for well-defined holophyletic taxa accepted by both schools) equal to, but in most cases curtailed and less reliable than, that provided by synthetic classifications.So, how cladists can defend their «anti-paraphyletic» dogma? Apparently, it is only possible by resort to casuistic loopholes. Paraphyletic taxa must not exist,。
产品特性分级

5
PPAP 检查单 PPAP Check List
• 零件号和更改级别 Part No.&Revision • 在图纸上给尺寸编号
Giving numbers to all dimension on drawings
• 在尺寸检查表中注明未注尺寸公差值
Confirm tolerance of dimensions which no tolerance on drawing
1
特性分级 Classification of Characteristics
埃尔特罗德6013(H117119-RDP、H117125-RDP、H117132-R01、H117

SDS # 404HBC8676124 ENG SDSS afety Latest Revision: June 2015 D ata Page 1 of 7 S heet Hobart Brothers Co. 1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION:PRODUCT NAME: Electrodes, 6013 (H117119-RDP, H117125-RDP, H117132-R01, H117144-R01)SUPPLIER: Hobart Brothers Co.2200 Corporate DriveTroy, OH 45373 U.S.A.Phone: 937-332-4000E-mail:**********************Website: EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1-800-424-9300 (Chemtrec CCN11662)___________________________________________________________________________________2. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION:Emergency Overview: This product is normally not considered hazardous as shipped. Avoid eye contact or inhalation of dust from the product. When this product is used in a welding process, the most important hazards are welding fumes, heat, radiation and electric shock.Classification of the Substance/MixtureCLP/GHS Classification (1272/2008):Carcinogenicity, Category 2EU Classification (67/548/EEC):Harmful (Xn), Carcinogen Category 3, R40Hazardous Classification per 29CFR 1910.1200 (Rev. July 1, 2012):Carcinogenicity, Category 2Labelling:Symbols:Signal Word: WarningHazard-determining components of labelling:Titanium DioxideHazard Statements:H351–Suspected of causing cancer.Precautionary Statements:P201 –Obtain special instructions before use.P202 –Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood.P280 –Wear protective gloves/eye protection/face protection.P281 –Use personal protective equipment as required.P308+P313 –IF exposed or concerned: Get medical advice/attention.P402+P404 –Store in a dry place. Store in a closed container.P405 –Store locked up.P501 –Dispose of contents/container in accordance with local/regional/national/international regulations.S heet Hobart Brothers Co. ___________________________________________________________________________________(H373) STOT RE2(H373) STOT RE 2(H351) Carc. 2 (H351) Carc. 2R36/38(H315) Skin(H319) Eye Irrit..2A(H315) Skin Irrit.. 2(H319) Eye Irrit..2AImportant This section covers the materials of which the products manufactured. The fumes and gases produced during normal use of this product are covered in section 10. The term “Hazardous” in “Hazardous Material” should be interpreted as a term required and defined in OSHA Hazard Communicatio n Standard 29CFR 1910-1200 and it does not necessarily imply the existence of hazard. The chemicals or compounds reportable by Section 313 of SARA are marked by the symbol #.___________________________________________________________________________________4. FIRST AID MEASURES:Inhalation: Remove to fresh air immediately or administer oxygen. Get medical attention immediately.Skin: Flush skin with large amounts of water. If irritation develops and persists, get medical attention.Eye: Flush eyes with water for at least 15 minutes. Get medical attention.Ingestion: Obtain medical attention immediately if ingested. Rinse mouth.Electric Shock: Disconnect and turn off the power. Use a nonconductive material to pull victim away from contact with live parts or wires. Immediately contact a physician.___________________________________________________________________________________5. FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES:Suitable Extinguishing Media: Use water spray, alcohol-resistant foam, dry chemical or carbon dioxide. Welding arcs and sparks can ignite combustible and flammable materials. Use the extinguishing media recommended for the burning material and fire situation.Unsuitable Extinguishing Media:Do not use water on molten metal. Large fires may be flooded with water from a distance.Specific Hazards Arising From Chemical: Keep away from heat/spark/open flames/hot surfaces – No smoking. Iron-oxides, Aluminum oxide, Silicon Oxides, Manganese/manganese oxidesProtective Equipment: Fire fighters should wear complete protective clothing including self-contained breathing apparatus. ___________________________________________________________________________________6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES:Personal Precautions: Refer to section 8.Environment Precautions: Refer to section 13.Cleaning Measures: Solid objects may be picked up and placed into a container. Liquids or pastes should be scooped up and placed into a container. Wear proper protective equipment while handling these materials. Do not discard as refuse.___________________________________________________________________________________7. HANDLING AND STORAGE:Precautions for Safe Handling: Handle with care to avoid stings or cuts. Wear gloves when handling welding consumables. Avoid exposure to dust. Do not ingest. Some individuals can develop an allergic reaction to certain materials. Retain all warning and identity labels.S heet Hobart Brothers Co. Conditions for Safe Storage: Store in dry place in closed packages. Keep separate from chemical substances like acids and strong bases, which could cause chemical reactions.___________________________________________________________________________________8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/ PERSONAL PROTECTION:Engineering Controls:Avoid exposure to welding fumes, radiation, spatter, electric shock, heated materials and dust. Ensure sufficient ventilation, local exhaust, or both, to keep welding fumes and gases from breathing zone and general area. Keep work place and protective clothing clean and dry. Train welders to avoid contact with live electrical parts and insulate conductive parts. Check condition of protective clothing and equipment on a regular basis.Exposure limits: Use industrial hygiene equipment to ensure that exposure does not exceed applicable national exposure limits. The limits defined under section 3 can be used as guidance. Unless noted, all values are for 8 hour time weighted average. For information about welding fume analysis refer to section 10.Biological limits: No available dataPersonal protection:Respiratory protection: Use an air purifying dust respirator when welding or brazing in a confined space, or when local exhaust or ventilation is not sufficient to keep exposure values within safe limits.Hands protection: Wear appropriate gloves to prevent skin contact.EN 12477: Protection gloves for weldersType B gloves are recommended when high dexterity is required as for TIG welding, while type A gloves are recommended for other welding processes. The contact temp (ºC) is 100 and the threshold time (seconds) >15. Eyes protection:Welder’s helmet or face shield with colour absorbing lenses. Shield and filter to provide protection from harmful UV radiation, infra red and molten metal approved to standard EN379. Filter shade to be a minimum of shade 9.Skin protection: Heat-resistant protective clothing. Wear safety boots, apron, arm and shoulder protection. Keep protective clothing clean and dry. Clothing should be selected to suit the level, duration and purpose of the welding activity.S heet Hobart Brothers Co.9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES:Appearance:Solid.Color: Green 1059/Black 1155/ Gold 1159/Blue 1160/ Tan 1168/Red 1171/ VioletOdour:OdourlessOdour Threshold: Not AvailablepH Value: Not AvailableMelting Point/Melting Range: : >2300° F, >1300° CFreezing Point: Not AvailableBoiling Point/Boiling Range: Not AvailableFlash point: Not AvailableEvaporation Rate: Not AvailableSelf-in flammability:Not AvailableExplosion limits: Not AvailableVapour pressure: Not AvailableVapour density: Not AvailableDensity at 20ºC: Not AvailableRelative density: 6-9 g/cm3Solubility:Insoluble in water.Partition coefficient: Not AvailableAuto-ignition temperature: Not AvailableDecomposition temperature: Not AvailableOther Information:No available data.___________________________________________________________________________________10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY:Chemical Stability: This product is stable under normal conditions.S heet Hobart Brothers Co. Hazardous Reactions: Contact with chemical substances like acids or strong bases cause generation of gas. Conditions to Avoid: Not applicable.Incompatible Materials: Reacts with acid.Hazardous Decomposition Products: When this product is used in a welding process, hazardous decomposition product would include those from volatilization, reaction or oxidation of the material listed in section 3 and those from the base metal and coating. The amount of fumes generated from this product varies with welding parameters and dimensions.Refer to applicable national exposure limits for fume compounds, including those exposure limits for fume compounds found in section 3. Manganese has a low exposure limit, in some countries that may be easily exceeded. Reasonably expected gaseous products would include carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides and ozone. Air contaminants around the welding area can be affected by the welding process and influence the composition and quality of fumes and gases produced.___________________________________________________________________________________11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION:Signs and Symptoms of Overexposure: Inhalation of welding fumes and gases can be dangerous to your health. Classification of welding fumes is difficult because of varying base materials, coatings, air contaminants and processes. The Internal Agency for Research on Cancer has classified welding fumes as possible carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).Acute Effects: Overexposure to welding fumes may result in symptoms like metal fume fever, dizziness, nausea, dryness or irritation of the nose, throat or eyes. May cause sensitisation by skin contactChronic Effects:Overexposure to welding fumes may affect pulmonary function and eyes. Overexposure to manganese and manganese compounds above safe exposure limits can cause irreversible damage to the central nervous system, including the brain, symptoms of which may include slurred speech, lethargy, tremor, muscular weakness, psychological disturbances and spastic gait. Prolonged inhalation of titanium dioxide (Classified 2B by IARC) above safe exposure limits can cause cancer.___________________________________________________________________________________12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION:Toxicity: Welding rods contain metals which are considered to be very toxic towards aquatic organisms. Finely divided welding rods are therefore considered harmful to aquatic organisms.Persistence and Degradability: The welding rods consist of elements that can not degrade any further in the environment. Bio accumulative Potential: Welding rods contain heavy metals which bio accumulates in the food chain. The following figures are the bio concentration factor (BCF) for the substances on their own.BCF:Iron, BCF: 140000S heet Hobart Brothers Co. Manganese, BCF: 59052Mobility in Soil: Welding rods are not soluble in water or soil. Particles formed by working welding rods can be transported in the air.Other Adverse Effects: In massive form, welding rods present no hazards to the aquatic environment.Welding materials could degrade into components originating from the materials used in the welding process. Avoid exposure to conditions that could lead to accumulation in soils or groundwater. Harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.___________________________________________________________________________________13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS:Product:For product elimination, consult recycling companies or appropriate local authority.USA RCRA: This product is not considered hazardous waste if discarded. Residue from welding consumables and processes could degrade and accumulate in soils and groundwater.Package:May be disposed in approved landfills provided local regulations are observed.___________________________________________________________________________________14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION:UN-number: Welding rods are not classified as dangerous goods for transport and has no UN number.UN proper shipping name: Welding rods are not classified as dangerous goods for transport and has no UN proper shipping name.Transport hazard class: Welding rods are not classified as dangerous goods for transport.Packing group: There are not any special precautions with which a user should or must comply or be aware of in connection with transport or conveyance either within or outside premises.Environmental hazards: Welding rods are not environmentally hazardous according to the criteria of the UN Model Regulations (as reflected in the IMDG Code, ADR, RID and AND) and/or a marine pollutant to the IMDG Code.Special precautions for users: There are not any special precautions which a user should or must comply or be aware of in connection with transport or conveyance either within or outside premises of the welding rod.Transport in Bulk According to Annex III MARPOL 73/78 and the IBC Code: Welding rods in massive form do not subject under MARPOL 73/78 and the IBC Code. Not applicable – product is transported only in packaged form.____________________________________________________________________________________15. REGULATORY INFORMATION:Safety, health and environment regulations/legislation specific for the substance or mixture: Read and understand the manufacturer’s instructions, your employer’s safety practices and the health and safety instructions on the label. Observe a ny federal and local regulations. Take precautions when welding and protect yourself and others.Warning: Welding fumes and gases are hazardous to your health and may damage lungs and other organs. Use adequate ventilation.Electric shock can kill. Arc rays and sparks can injure eyes and burn skin. Wear correct hand, head, eye and body protection.Chemical safety assessment: NoUSA: Under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, this product is considered hazardous. This product contains or produces a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects (or other reproductive harm). (California Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et seq.) United States EPA Toxic Substance Control Act: All constituents of this product are on the TSCA inventory list or are excluded from listing.EPCRA/SARA Title III Toxic ChemicalsThe following metallic components are listed as SARA 313 “Toxic Chemicals” and potential subject to annual SARA reporting. See Section 3 for weight percentage.S heet Hobart Brothers Co. ___________________________________________________________________________________16. OTHER INFORMATION:The information in this document is believed to be correct as of the date issued. However, no warranty is expressed to be implied regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information. This information and product are furnished on the condition that the person receiving them shall make his own determinations as to the suitability of the product for his particular purpose and on the condition that he assumes the risk of his use thereof.This Material Safety Data Sheet complies with the EC directives 91/155/EEC and 93/112/EEC, including modifications 2001/58/EC.Complies with OSHA Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 Public Law 99-499Hazard Statements:H315 –Causes skin irritation.H319– Causes serious eye irritation.H351– Suspected of causing lung cancer.H373– May cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure.R-Phrases:R36/38 –Irritating to eyes and skin.R40 –Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect.R48 –Danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure.S-Phrases:S36/37 –Wear suitable protective clothing and gloves.S43 –In case of fire, use fire-fighting equipment on basis class D.End of the document.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
,
(1.2)
obius function of a Sheffer interval of length n; see [6, 10]. where µ is the M¨ The classic example of a Sheffer poset is the infinite cubical poset (see Example 3.6). In this case, every interval [x, y ] of length n, where x is not the minimal element ˆ 0, has n! maximal chains. In fact, every such interval is isomorphic to a Boolean algebra. Intervals of the form [ˆ 0, y ] have 2n−1 · (n − 1)! maximal chains and are isomorphic to the face lattice of a finite dimensional cube. In Sections 3 and 4 we completely classify the factorial functions of Eulerian Sheffer posets. The factorial function B (n) follows from the classification of binomial posets. The pair of factorial functions B (n) and D (n) fall into three cases (see Theorem 4.1) and one infinite class (Theorem 3.11). Furthermore, for the infinite class we can describe the underlying Sheffer intervals; see Theorem 3.12. For two of the three cases in Theorem 4.1 we can also classify the Sheffer intervals. For the third case we construct a multitude of examples of Sheffer posets. See Examples 3.9, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. It is striking that we can find many Sheffer posets having the same factorial functions as the infinite cubical lattice, but with the Sheffer intervals not isomorphic to the finite cubical lattice. However, once we require each Sheffer interval to be a lattice then we obtain that the Sheffer intervals are isomorphic to cubical lattices. When we impose the further condition that a given Eulerian binomial or Eulerian Sheffer poset is a lattice, this forces the poset to be the infinite Boolean algebra BX or the infinite cubical lattice <∞ CX . See Examples 2.10 and 4.6. The classification of the factorial functions hinges on the condition that the posets under consid2
Dedicated to Richard Stanley on the occasion of his 60th birthday.
Abstract We give a complete classification of the factorial functions of Eulerian binomial posets. The factorial function B (n) either coincides with n!, the factorial function of the infinite Boolean algebra, or 2n−1 , the factorial function of the infinite butterfly poset. We also classify the factorial functions for Eulerian Sheffer posets. An Eulerian Sheffer poset with binomial factorial function B (n) = n! has Sheffer factorial function D(n) identical to that of the infinite Boolean algebra, the infinite Boolean algebra with two new coatoms inserted, or the infinite cubical poset. Moreover, we are able to classify the Sheffer factorial functions of Eulerian Sheffer posets with binomial factorial function B (n) = 2n−1 as the doubling of an upside-down tree with ranks 1 and 2 modified. When we impose the further condition that a given Eulerian binomial or Eulerian Sheffer poset is a lattice, this forces the poset to be the infinite Boolean algebra BX or the infinite cubical lattice ∞ C< X . We also include several poset constructions that have the same factorial functions as the infinite cubical poset, demonstrating that classifying Eulerian Sheffer posets is a difficult problem.
1
A graded poset is Eulerian if its M¨ obius function is given by µ(x, y ) = (−1)ρ(y)−ρ(x) for all x ≤ y in the poset. Equivalently, every interval of the poset satisfies the Euler-Poincar´ e relation: the number of elements of even rank is equal to the number of elements of odd rank in the interval. The foremost example of Eulerian posets are face lattices of convex polytopes and more generally, the face posets of regular CW -spheres. Hence there is much geometric and topological interest in understanding them. A natural question arises: which binomial posets are Eulerian? By equation (1.1) it is clear that the Eulerian property can be determined by knowing the factorial function. In this paper we classify the factorial functions of Eulerian binomial posets. There are two possibilities, namely, for the factorial function to correspond to that of the infinite Boolean algebra or the infinite butterfly poset. Notice that this classification is on the level of the factorial function, not the poset itself. There are more Eulerian binomial posets than these two essential examples. See Examples 2.9 through 2.11. However, we are able to classify the intervals of Eulerian binomial posets. They are either isomorphic to the finite Boolean algebra or the finite butterfly poset. Sheffer posets were introduced by Reiner [10] and independently by Ehrenborg and Readdy [6]. A Sheffer poset requires the number of maximal chains of an interval [x, y ] of length n to be given by B (n) if x > ˆ 0 and D (n) if x = ˆ 0. The upper intervals [x, y ] where x > ˆ 0 have the property of being binomial. Hence the interest is to understand the Sheffer intervals [ˆ 0, y ]. Just like binomial posets, the M¨ obius function is completely determined: tn tn tn µ(n) = − · D (n) D (n) B (n) n≥1 n≥0 n≥1