One might conclude that if the topic of discussion is credible, then what other people say about it is likely to be credible as well. We can come to the conclusion that if the topic of discussion is trustworthy, then other people's statements about it are believed

After reading this article you will learn how to write a conclusion.

You have written and you need to write a conclusion. Read on to find out how to do this...

The first thing to note is that, as a general rule, the optimal length of a conclusion is 2-3 pages.

You should start with this phrase: The goal and objectives set in the work have been fulfilled. In particular(further we write the goal and objectives that were defined in the introduction). ( For example: The goal and objectives set in the course work have been completed. The concept and features of civil legal relations are studied, the elements of civil legal relations are considered, the features of the classification of civil legal relations are studied, property and personal, relative and absolute, proprietary and obligatory legal relations are revealed. Brief conclusions).

So, we can conclude that...

The conducted research allows us to conclude...

So, to summarize, we can state the following: ....

In conclusion, we note that...

To summarize, we can say...

Summing up the analysis, it should be noted...

From all that has been said, it follows that...

Thus, we can conclude...

Therefore, we come to the conclusion...

...the work allows us to conclude that...

come or come

In Russian, the word “come” is written with the letter “y” - come .

Confusion in the spelling of this word arises because there are forms of " go», « I'm coming», « will come».

In addition, there used to be a norm for writing “to come,” which is mentioned in the explanatory dictionary edited by Ushakov. In some literary works of the last century, the spelling “to come” is also found. However, this way of writing is outdated, as is similar pronunciation.

Today we speak and write this word without the letter “d” - “ come».

Word writing rule

Spelling of the infinitive " come"is based on the morphological principle, that is, it depends on the composition of the word. Thinking about the question of how to “ come" or " come", you should carefully consider the structure of the word. It consists of the prefix at-, root – th– and verb suffix – you. (Wed: u-y-ti, for-y-ti, you-y-ti, re-y-ti and etc.)

According to the rules of the Russian language, after the vowel sound of the prefix, the root sound “i” turns into a short “y”. It was this sound that remained from the previous root -id- (the word looked like “pri-id-ti”). Since the language strives for euphony and brevity, the sound [d] gradually merged with the suffixal sound [t]. Therefore, they began to write and say “ come».

Examples

• The director first apologized to his subordinates for not being able to come earlier, and only then began the performance.
• Opportunity come Veronica, under this innocent pretext, attracted him so much that he forgot about his previous plans for the evening.
• Before come To this conclusion, the investigator looked at the photographs for a long time and checked every detail on them.

Come to conclusion

Come to conclusion

to come to a conclusion, to deduce, to infer, to decide, to conclude, to conclude, to judge, to conclude

Dictionary of Russian synonyms.

See what “come to a conclusion” is in other dictionaries:

COME, I will come, you will come; came, went; come; having arrived; Sovereign 1. While walking, to achieve something, to appear where n. P. home. P. for a visit. 2. (1st person and 2nd person not used). To come, to come, to arise. It's time to study. It's time for lunch. Came... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

I will come, you will come; past came, came, went; prib. past come; deepr. having arrived; owls (nesov. come). 1. Walking, following where to go, to reach what place. places; arrive. I came home. Savelich met me at the threshold. Pushkin, The Captain's Daughter. They went… … Small academic dictionary

This article lacks links to sources of information. Information must be verifiable, otherwise it may be questioned and deleted. You can... Wikipedia

The style of this article is non-encyclopedic or violates the norms of the Russian language. The article should be corrected according to Wikipedia's stylistic rules. The paradox of unexpected execution (eng. Unexpected hanging par ... Wikipedia

- (from Latin socialis social, French socialisme) a social system that sets itself the global goal of overthrowing capitalism, building a perfect society in the foreseeable future, completing the history of mankind, and mobilizing to achieve... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Cm … Synonym dictionary

- (Boas) Franz (1858 1942) Amer. anthropologist. He lived in Germany and was educated at the universities of Heidelberg, Bonn and Kiel. He began his scientific activity in Kiel, where in 1881 he was awarded the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Medicine. sciences... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

- (1) DECIDE (1) I’ll decide, you’ll decide, owl. (to decide). 1. what. Find the right answer, determine what you are looking for. Solve a problem. Solve the riddle. Solve the equation. || Solve a given problem in one way or another (special). The façade of the building is designed vertically... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

This term has other meanings, see Adam (meanings). Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎) ... Wikipedia

Books

• Cultural relations of Russia with European countries in the XV-XVII centuries. The monograph is devoted to the study of the relationship between Russian chronicle sources and Western European works on the history of Rus' and Eastern Europe. Textual analysis of the works of Jan Dlugosz,...

These rules allow one journalist to use facts established by another journalist, preferably with reference to the original source. This approach makes investigations much easier for reporters because they can rely on their colleagues' previous work instead of starting over from scratch. This process is called "delegation of trust".

The Web has its own innovations in trust delegation, known as the “link economy.” In general, it refers to the exchange of traffic and information between blogs and websites. Let's say the Los Angeles Times reports that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are divorcing. Perez Hilton links to this post on his blog and shares his own thoughts. Then other blogs link to Perez Hilton's post and perhaps to the original Los Angeles Times. This is a legacy of the early blogosphere, when blogs lacked the resources to do original reporting. They relied on other media sources to construct their stories, citing them and commenting on them. This gave birth to the so-called link economy, which encouraged sites to link to each other regularly and consistently. Now I send you a link, then you send me a link, and so we do each other favors by doing reporting work.

The term “link economy” was popularized by Jeff Jarvis, who you are already familiar with. His track record as a blogger, journalism professor at New York University's Graduate School of Journalism, and author of books such as What Will Google Do? has made him incredibly influential. Unfortunately, he is also an idiot, and the link economy he advocates is a breeding ground for all sorts of shenanigans.

The link economy encourages blogs to point readers to other bloggers who say crazy things, borrow unverified material from each other, take more or less complete stories from other sites, add a layer of commentary, and turn them into their own posts.

To borrow a term from computer science, link economics is recursive in nature: blogs borrow information from previous blogs to create new content. Think about the extent to which home video creators rely on other clips to create something new to post on YouTube, or how Twitter users forward and comment on messages from other users.

The trade in fabricated stories up the chain clearly indicates that the media are no longer governed by a set of universal editorial and ethical standards. Even within a single article, the amount of evidence for a printed newspaper article can be very different from what would be enough to publish a blog post. As media channels face tighter deadlines and staff reductions, many of the old norms of corroboration and fact-checking are becoming too onerous. Every blog has its own editorial policy, but few disclose it to their readers. Material that one site borrows from another is unlikely to be considered credible if it is equally likely to meet low or high publishing standards.

The conditions under which delegation of trust can be justified in a link economy no longer exist. But old habits persist and often form an explosive mixture that leads to viral misinformation.

You may recall the time Crain's New York emailed me asking if American Apparel was going to close any of its Manhattan stores due to the financial crisis, to which I responded with a resounding "no." So they found a real estate agent who didn't work with American Apparel but said we could do it. Headline: American Apparel may divest some of its New York stores" (despite my categorical denial quote). The Crain's New York story received numerous links and was used as a source by the blog Jezebel, then by New York Magazine's The Cut, and then by the blog Racked NY. The Daily Finance blog on AOL turned it into a slideshow, "Top Ten Companies Closing Stores Due to the Financial Downturn." None of these sites bothered to contact me with questions, since Crain's New York had already asked and answered them; they could have just made a link. A week later, for some unknown reason, Crain's published the same article with a new headline: "Developing the topic: American Apparel may close its stores in New York," which, after appearing on Google Finance, started the whole cycle all over again.

More than a year has passed, but each of these publications is still in the public domain. The links still point to the old lies.

A few years ago, a young Irish student posted a fake quote from composer Maurice Jarre on his Wikipedia page shortly after his death. The quote included in the obituary read, in part, “When I die, let a farewell waltz play in my head that only I can hear.” I don't think the student understood at the time the effect of the interaction between link economics and delegation of trust. All this changed in an instant when the fake quote began appearing in the composer's obituaries around the world.

It was hard to pinpoint where it all started, but at some point a reporter or blogger saw this quote and used it in an article. The quote eventually made its way into The Guardian and has since become a reality. It perfectly reflected what the authors wanted to say about Maurice Jarre, and the fact that it appeared in the prominent and respected newspaper The Guardian made it the source of numerous new references. The chain began again, its origins were lost, and the more often it was repeated, the more real it became.

I'll show you where the link economy fails. Wikipedia editors could track and quickly remove a student's edit, but this would not automatically correct obituaries that already included a fictitious quote. Wikipedia administrators are unable to edit stories on other people's sites, so the quote remained in The Guardian until they came to their senses and corrected their article. The link economy is intended for support and confirmation, not for questions or corrections. In fact, the deception was discovered only after the student admitted to what he had done.

“I am one hundred percent convinced that if it were not for my speech, the quote would have remained in history as the original words of Maurice Jarre,” he said. “This was another example of how if something is published many times in the media without any questions asked, it becomes a fact.”

Proponents of the link economy reject such examples. They say that publications can be updated; that's the beauty of the Internet. But to my knowledge, there is no technology that issues a warning for every trace or every reader who reads a misrepresented article, and there never will be such a technology. The evolution of news is in many ways similar to biological evolution. It jumps, undergoes interspecific crossing and develops simultaneously in many places. It cannot be accurately tracked or corrected.

Senator Eugene McCarthy once compared the journalists who covered his 1968 presidential campaign to birds on telegraph wires. When one bird flies to a nearby wire, the others follow. When another bird flies back, the others follow suit. These days, this metaphor also needs updating. Birds still flock to the one that flies first, but the wires are not always actually there. Birds often land on illusory wires, as happened to blogs when they repeated the fictitious words of Maurice Jarre.

The illusion of links

In the link economy, the blue stamp of an HTML tag looks like it adds extra weight (as it did with a link to an article with a fake quote from The Guardian). If I wrote on my blog that Thomas Jefferson, in his own words, admitted to committing acts that were considered criminal offenses in the state of Virginia, you would want to see some evidence before you were convinced that I was right. Now imagine that I added a link to the words “acts that were considered criminal offenses.” This link can take you anywhere, even to a dictionary definition of "felony offenses" or to a pdf of the entire Virginia Penal Code. One way or another, formally I acted in accordance with the standards of the link economy. I relied on the authority of the source and referred to it, and now the task of discrediting this link is entrusted to the readers.

Bloggers know this and abuse it to the fullest. They have long operated on the principle that references imply credibility. Even Google exploits this illusion. The search engine, created by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were students at Stanford, replicates the standard academic practice of using a series of citations in a research paper to indicate its influence or credibility. But scientific articles are reviewed by scientists and editorial boards, so questionable citations rarely go unnoticed.

Online links are similar to quotations, but they are rarely citations in the true sense of the word. Using unreliable and unverified sources, bloggers make fantastic statements that spread well on the Internet and collect a lot of comments. Some people are afraid to do something openly, so excuses like “I’m not the first to talk about this” look very attractive. This is a way to shift the burden of responsibility onto another blogger or reader.

People consume content online, flipping through pages and skimming headlines. To again use an ornithological metaphor, they can be compared to what William Zinser called “the restless birds nesting on the thin edge of attention.” Only 44 % of Google News users view real articles. Hence the conclusion: almost no one even clicks on interesting links. Or, if this does happen, readers are not conscientious enough and do not bother to make sure that the new material confirms the last article they read.

If readers only spend mere seconds on websites scanning headlines, how much effort do they spend wondering whether the blogger cares about evidence for what he says? The number of articles that we read carefully, like some kind of amateur editor and fact-checker rolled into one, is far inferior to the number of publications that we take on faith without any evidence. Material from one site quickly finds its way to others. Scandalous claims spread wider and faster, and their dubious nature is better masked by links when they go viral. Who knows how many times you and I have walked past false claims that looked legitimate because of a bright little link?

Flawed Doctrine

As I tell my clients, everything that begins in vague form ends in real time and then becomes established fact. This means that the vague mention of something “possible” on the first site becomes a reality by the time the information comes full circle. The next time bloggers mention your name, they will look back and add the past tense to their last statement, regardless of what actually happened. This is the recursive principle in action, officially sanctioned by the rules of the link economy.

In such circumstances, new mistakes are very easily piled on top of previous ones, and real reporting work is based on lies and manipulations, since the analysis is carried out on the most shaky foundations. As one reporter put it, "the finished mixture can be incorporated into another mixture."

The link economy encourages bloggers to repeat what others say and link to them instead of doing their own research and analysis. With this approach, news turns from events that happened into someone's words about supposedly happening events. Needless to say, these are not the same thing.

One of my favorite books is Being Wrong: Adventures on the Edge of Error by Katherine Schultz. Although media errors are not the topic of the book, Schultz convincingly explains why the media often reaches the wrong conclusions. According to her, scientists reproduce the experiments of their colleagues in order to confirm or refute their findings. On the other hand, journalists reproduce the conclusions of their colleagues (which are often erroneous) and base their reasoning on them.

The news has always been riddled with errors because it is based on recursive references rather than self-criticism. Errors do not appear as isolated incidents, but travel in waves across news channels, sometimes with dire consequences. Because blogs and the media are closely intertwined and interdependent, a lack of common sense or poor analysis in one place affects many others.

In the scientific community, researchers often compete with each other, and everyone strives to refute the results of their colleagues in the profession. This process effectively eliminates errors and falsifications. There is no such culture in journalism. Reporters strive to beat their competitors in developing similar topics, often adding new sensations to existing stories. Meanwhile, experts like Jeff Jarvis bluntly advise online publications and aspiring bloggers not to waste time trying to “copy the work of other reporters.” In the era of links, this is unnecessary and completely ineffective, he says. Don't waste precious resources comparing your competitors' stories, testing and confirming or disproving them, as a scientist might. Instead, start where they left off and see where you can get. Don't be a perfectionist, he urges: join the link economy and delegate trust.

When I hear people talk about interconnectedness and interdependence—like one reporter who suggested that his colleagues use the hash tag NR (“neutral retweet”) to preface tweets they post on their accounts but don’t endorse—I can’t help but I'm reminded of the subprime mortgage crisis. I'm thinking of one bank passing on subprime loans to another bank, which in turn collects large packages of loans and hands them over to a third bank to manage. Why retweet content you don't trust? I think of the rating agencies that were supposed to be watching the subprime market but were too overwhelmed by the disaster to do their job. I think about falling dominoes and wonder why we are doing this again, multiplying the domino effect in the digital world.

Of course, repeat studies are expensive. But this is a known price that people who make money from news must pay. This is protection and at the same time a deterrent. There is an unknown price to pay for the collapse of banks, trust or sources of information, and it is paid by everyone, not just banks and companies.

When Jarvis and others zealously advocate new concepts that they do not understand, it is both ridiculous and dangerous. Online gurus try to tell us that in this widespread, crowdsourced version of reality, fact-checking and research become more accurate because more people participate. But I side with Descartes and believe more in the scientific approach, where everyone is responsible for their own work and questions the conclusions of others, which encourages everyone to be honest and extra careful.

The old media system was far from perfect, but its expensive business model, so despised by online gurus, at least had a resemblance to scientific replication of research findings. She found independent confirmation wherever possible. She advocated editorial independence instead of risky interdependence. Sure, it's expensive and definitely old-fashioned, but it's one step above the pseudoscience of link economics. It was certainly better than what we have on the Web, where blogs produce nothing more than "[some other blog] says..." and unconfirmed information floats from one place to another under the justification of " I referred to the place where I stole it from.”

Knowing the source of the information, or even the fact that it came from somewhere else, does not eliminate the problem of delegation of trust. In fact, this is the dark side of the link economy. It creates the appearance of a solution, although in reality it solves nothing. Some other blogger talked to the source (“don't believe me, here's the link”), so now others don't have to check anything. This is not enough for me. We deserve better. I'm lucky that CNN decided not to pursue its untested story. I appealed to their common sense and humanity, and it worked. Almost two years have passed since then. I still consider this incident a windfall and I don’t think I’ll be so lucky again. And no one else either.

Why are we writing go through "dt", but come via "it"? And how to write correctly: I'll come or I I'll come?

"You may ask: how do they write now - come or come? I answer with all certainty: now we are talking and writing come. That is, the old parallel version come no longer allowed. It is written come, But go."

Correct use of the verb come from the words of the candidate of philological sciences M. Koroleva (author of the book “Speaking Russian”) on the Science and Life website.

The website "Culture of Writing" explains that the verb go, which previously had a parallel spelling and through dt(as now), and through tt, is one of the most ancient words in the lexical fund of not only Slavic, but also other Indo-European languages. Vocabulary of this kind, as a rule, has a very characteristic feature - suppletivism of roots. The term suppletivism (translated from French as “additional”) literally means that different forms of such words are formed from different stems. A striking example is, say, the verb be with its shapes is, was, will be In russian language; to be - am, are, is in English.

The same goes for the verb go. Indeed, from different stems different forms of the present, past and future tense are formed, as well as the infinitive (indefinite form of the verb, for example, eat, fly, think...) and participles of this verb and related ones: going, going, going, going, going, going, going.

In Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian, the infinitive of this verb sounded like i-ti. Wherein -And- is the root of the verb, and -ty is an infinitive suffix. Present tense verb stem i-ti contained an additional consonant - the so-called infix* -d-. Compare modern forms e-doo, go-eat, go-eat and so on.

From the verb go numerous prefixed verbs like enter, find, go, get off, come, leave, approach and so on. In all these words the initial "root" And goes into -th-. Moreover, instead of writing -dt- the old spelling is retained with one T.

In forms of the future simple tense of the verb come(when writing which ! Using the old parallel version is no longer allowed come!) sound And falls out.
That is: I will come(but I won’t come) you'll come, he will come etc. - in the infinitive form come.

Finally, another spelling feature of the verb go. Along with the "hat doesn't suit him" form (where Not written separately) the use of a somewhat archaic negative form is allowed: “doesn’t come to mind” (where Not written together).

These are the features of the formation and writing of verbs go And come related to the history of these words and their forms in the Russian language.

* Infix - an affix (an auxiliary part of a word for word formation), inserted into the middle of the root of a word for a new grammatical meaning.

According to information from Wikipedia verb come perfective, intransitive, has an isolated conjugation. The corresponding imperfective verb is to come.

Console: at-; root: -th-; verb ending: -ty.

Morphological and syntactic properties of the verbcome:

come- verb, perfective, intransitive, isolated conjugation. The corresponding imperfective verb is to come.

Console: at-; root: -th-; verb ending: -ty.

Semantic properties:

walking, to be somewhere, to reach some place ◆ Can I come to you today?

to come, to become a reality ◆ Spring has come. ◆ It was his turn to go on patrol.

to be in any state ◆ From such words he became furious. ◆ The table has become unusable.

Synonyms: arrive, arrive, arrive

Antonyms: leave, go out

Hyponyms: to hobble, to waddle