Is a prototype an example of concept?
922321
Prototype generally refers to first reduction-to-practice of a concept, although concept is sometimes used for prototype.
30828
basicity (a starting point)
348831
The idea of evolution of ideas fits well in the framework of memetics, the evolutionary model for describing the units of information in the brain (called "memes", as analogous to "genes"): how they spread from one brain to others, how they mutate, and of course, how they evolve in time.\n\nThe answer to your question is yes: there are many examples of evolved ideas, one of the most noticeable, already reported in the original article (see reference) from Richard Dawkins, the biologist who first introduced the concept, is the idea of God.\n\nMemetics provides a convincing explanation for some aspects of cultural evolution, based on a testable mechanism (replication errors and natural selection).\nOn the other hand, as far as I can understand it, invariantology is a fascinating but untestable theory, since every human can build a different, and ultimately arbitrary, classification of invariants.
930857
it's just a summary..dont be afraid. its basically the way you understand the concept.maybe you can throw in your own little example.
861488
There would be two schools of thought there;  The first being that maths is logic, there can be no invention by definition of logic.  The second being that mathematics is, if you will, only the language invented by humankind in order to utilise the discovery of intrinsic logic. E.g.; something is the opposite of nothing. Something as well as something are somethings. The real Question is; which came first? (We'll tolerate neither chicken nor egg jokes from the peanut gallery thnx)
598075
As quoted on wikipedia for INVENTION:\n\n"An invention is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty. An invention may sometimes be based on earlier breakthroughs, collaborations or ideas, and the process of invention requires at least the awareness that an existing concept or method can be modified or transformed into a new invention. However, some inventions also represent a "quantum leap" in science or technology which extends the boundaries of human knowledge. Legal protection can sometimes be granted to an invention by way of a patent."\n\nThe keywords here are "Displays an element of novelty". A computer displays such a novelty. Before the computer there was no such idea in place that would describe a computer. It started out an idea and humanity created it out of necessity and out of curiosity. Expanding the limits of humanities own knowledge.\n\nSecond point is that it was based on earlier breakthroughs in the fields of electronics, the principle of electricity and the "invention" of the switch.\n\nBecause of its novelty, the fundamentals of a computer are protected by patents, thousands of them. So if you apply this principle to the computers parts, you could say that a computer is a product of thousands of inventions.\n\nBy taking something known and extending it further than has been done before, that right there says a computer is an invention. The computer has also spawned inventions itself... like the invention of Yahoo Answers!
846817
Yes, the concept is illusion, you need action to make it real.  And some concepts are fallacious; you can understand it but it is not truth.  Others concepts may be truth for some but not for you.   For example, if it goes against your basic values.   Imagine a capitalist trying to live as a socialist, for lack of a better example.
844297
Yes ofcourse, I would think many stereotypes are valid but only when stated properly in the form of a generalization. Why else would they exist? But you must decide whether there's a difference between a "stereotype" and a "generalization". Most people use the two ideas interchangably. If what ur using or talking about is really a generalization, then ur not making an absolute or undebatable statement on something. Stereotype's are usually invalid when they claim to be absolute or undebatable by using words like "always", or "never". If however, it's presented as a generalization using words like "most" "usually" etc, then it could be valid statement. And for that reason, many stereotypes can be all or partially valid. Or they would never have appeared in the first place. But I think in ur question you are also refering to  those fashionable constructs about people that place them into groups. Those relationships between a person and some behaviour or artical of clothing that puts everything into one package. Well, even some of those constructs must have some basis for having come along. My best advise is when deciding about whether a particular idea is valid or not ...try exercising some of ur own analytical skills as well. Don't simply accept everything that peers, fashion or media may be stating.
145647
In general it used in negetive sense.\nFor example you are supposed to implement Matrix multiplication( or built a matrix object).\nThere is two way to show that your implementation works,\n1. create some matrix in your code and show with that. to test for another value you have to change the code.\n2. Take matrix as input from user.\n\nFirst practice is known as hardcore progrmming.
463328
Your question is not clear. Furnish some examples.
854649
This example illustrates recursive calls:\n\nint factorial( int num );      /* Function prototype */\n\nint main()\n{\n    int result, number;\n    .\n    .\n    .\n    result = factorial( number );\n}\n\nint factorial( int num )      /* Function definition */\n{\n    .\n    .\n    .\n    if ( ( num > 0 ) || ( num <= 10 ) )\n        return( num * factorial( num - 1 ) );\n}\n\n\n\nsorry cant find any program of that sort , and to write one i may well take more than one hour.\n\ngood luck :)
431177
They havent yet. Not in the usefull sense. However, I know scientists are sucessfull in creating components for nanobots. They've created ultra small engines, switches, transistors, wires, etc. The tecnological hurdle as I understand it is that 'connecting' these devices are really tricky.
177411
Try:\nhttp://www.sff.net/people/julia.west/CALLIHOO/ideagen2.htm
238657
Usually theories and models help to define the way that you design experiments.  So for example, if you start with the theoretical framework of the big bang, then there are things that you can assume about what the appropriate baseline red-shift of an object should be.  Deviations from this baseline can tell you information about the objects relative motion to you or internal motion in the object.\n\nMost research builds on previous theories and ideas to push the envelope to new ideas.  Using an established theoretical framework is just part of good science.  Now an important additional note is that sometimes your experiement will bring the theoretical framework into question, because the results will violate what you'd expect given the parameters of the framework.  In this case, it is also good science to question and revise your framework.
563271
You can patent the idea alone; they don't make you prove that it works.  Patents exist for devices that are physically impossible, such as perpetual motion machines.
1136350
Good Question, Mandelbrot's book and Barnsley's book will provide you with many examples.
78985
No it does not.\n\nSometimes it's appropriate to have exactly one instance of a class: window managers, print spoolers, and filesystems are prototypical examples. Typically, those types of objects—known as singletons—are accessed by disparate objects throughout a software system, and therefore require a global point of access. Of course, just when you're certain you will never need more than one instance, it's a good bet you'll change your mind.\n\nThe Singleton design pattern addresses all of the previous paragraph's concerns. With the Singleton design pattern you can:\n\n    * Ensure that only one instance of a class is created\n    * Provide a global point of access to the object\n    * Allow multiple instances in the future without affecting a singleton class's clients\n\nAlthough the Singleton design pattern—as evidenced below by the figure below—is one of the simplest design patterns, it presents a number of pitfalls for the unwary Java developer. This article discusses the Singleton design pattern and addresses those pitfalls. \n\n Example 1. The classic singleton\n\npublic class ClassicSingleton {\n   private static ClassicSingleton instance = null;\n\n   protected ClassicSingleton() {\n      // Exists only to defeat instantiation.\n   }\n   public static ClassicSingleton getInstance() {\n      if(instance == null) {\n         instance = new ClassicSingleton();\n      }\n      return instance;\n   }\n}\n\nThe singleton implemented in Example 1 is easy to understand. The ClassicSingleton class maintains a static reference to the lone singleton instance and returns that reference from the static getInstance() method.\n\nThere are several interesting points concerning the ClassicSingleton class. First, ClassicSingleton employs a technique known as lazy instantiation to create the singleton; as a result, the singleton instance is not created until the getInstance() method is called for the first time. This technique ensures that singleton instances are created only when needed.\n\nSecond, notice that ClassicSingleton implements a protected constructor so clients cannot instantiate ClassicSingleton instances; however, you may be surprised to discover that the following code is perfectly legal:\n\npublic class SingletonInstantiator {\n  public SingletonInstantiator() {\n   ClassicSingleton instance = ClassicSingleton.getInstance();\nClassicSingleton anotherInstance =\nnew ClassicSingleton();\n       ...\n  }\n}\n\nHow can the class in the preceding code fragment—which does not extend ClassicSingleton—create a ClassicSingleton instance if the ClassicSingleton constructor is protected? The answer is that protected constructors can be called by subclasses and by other classes in the same package. Because ClassicSingleton and SingletonInstantiator are in the same package (the default package), SingletonInstantiator() methods can create ClassicSingleton instances. This dilemma has two solutions: You can make the ClassicSingleton constructor private so that only ClassicSingleton() methods call it; however, that means ClassicSingleton cannot be subclassed. Sometimes, that is a desirable solution; if so, it's a good idea to declare your singleton class final, which makes that intention explicit and allows the compiler to apply performance optimizations. The other solution is to put your singleton class in an explicit package, so classes in other packages (including the default package) cannot instantiate singleton instances.\n\nA third interesting point about ClassicSingleton: it's possible to have multiple singleton instances if classes loaded by different classloaders access a singleton. That scenario is not so far-fetched; for example, some servlet containers use distinct classloaders for each servlet, so if two servlets access a singleton, they will each have their own instance.\n\nFourth, if ClassicSingleton implements the java.io.Serializable interface, the class's instances can