Contingency constraints

The Stated preferences method is a controversial method and well debated between economists. The main criticism towards the Contingent Valuation (CV) method is that the elicited values and people s WTP is based on hypothetical answers and not real economic decisions and thereby meaningless because people are not facing real payments or a real budget constraint [18]. 

The most successful theoretical framework in which the accumulating data has been understood is the tube model of de Gennes, Doi and Edwards [2]. We visit the model in more detail in Sect. 2, but the fundamental assumption is simple to state the topological constraints by which contingent chains may not cross each other, which act in reality as complex many-body interactions, are assumed to be equivalent for each chain to a tube of width a surrounding and coarse-graining its own contour (Fig. 2). So, motions perpendicular to the tube contour are confined while those curvilinear to it are permitted. The theory then resembles a dynamic version of rubber elasticity with local dissipation, and with the additional assumption of the tube constraints. 

As mentioned earlier, surface water sources forming part of an estuarine system are subject to tremendous swings in chloride concentration. Levels of 1000 ppm Cl or more are not unusual, which imposes serious constraints, plus corrosion and deposit control problems when used as makeup for cooling systems that may normally operate at 3 to 4x cycles of concentration. Contingency plans are necessary. 

Implicit in Darwin s work is chance represented by the randomness of mutations in the genetic patrimony and their necessary filtering by natural selection. However, the novel point of view that astrobiology forces on us is to accept that randomness is built into the fabric of the living process. Yet, contingency, which is represented by the large number of possibilities for evolutionary pathways, is limited by a series of constraints. 

Vigorous controversies notwithstanding, I must begin by acknowledging that the roles of constraint and contingency in evolutionary processes are, of course, not mutually exclusive. In fact they are mutually necessary (Carroll, 2001). Nevertheless, a significant amount of both the scientific and interdisciplinary literature on these issues has been characterized by an unnecessary dichotomization of causal explanations and a regrettable polarization of rhetoric. There are two reasons for this, both of which I hope at least to avoid, if not to redress. 

Evolution takes place continuously and it is contingent. Thus, its interconnections form in a complex way so that novel functions can evolve in older contexts. Major constraints of direct contingency are global catastrophes, for instance, impacts of large meteorites or asteroids, glaciations of large areas, major volcanic events, and earthquakes. All these events can result in mass extinction of organisms. 

Constraints with drivers. There is expected to be a shortage of 400,000 drivers by the end of 2013. There are few young drivers fewer than 25 percent of drivers are under the age of 35. There is also an equally concerning shortage of equipment. Companies need to make contingency plans and get ready for the day that they cannot get a truck. 

As discussed earlier, the disposition of constraints ( C ) is a design management problem. A peerhood relationship between PVS and DDD must include a framework for enforcing conditions when appropriate. In the counter optimization just described, bisimulation is contingent on certain input behaviors, hence these conditions are inherited as constraints on any system employing the synchronization circuit. 

On the other hand, if there is a second stage where bidders report their realized valuations then one can achieve efficiency and incentive compatibility. An example will be helpful to make the distinction clear. Consider the oil lease example. Pick any auction with the constraint that all payments and allocations must be made before the winner is allowed to drill for oil and determine the actual value of the lease. Then, no such auction can be guaranteed to be both efficient and incentive compatible. Now add a second stage where the winner reports the actual value of the lease and further monetary transfers are made contingent on the reported actual value. In this case it is possible to design an auction that is both incentive compatible and efficient, see Mezzetti [50]. 

---