document_title: Article Three of the United States Constitution

question_text: the only type of court(s) required by the constitution is/are

question_tokens: the only type of court ( s ) required by the constitution is / are

text: Section 1: Federal courts[edit]

text: Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges.

text: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

text: Number of courts[edit]

text: Article III authorizes one Supreme Court, but does not set the number of justices that must be appointed to it. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 refers to a Chief Justice (who shall preside over the impeachment trial of a President). The number of justices is fixed by statute at nine: the one chief justice, and eight associate justices.[1]

text: Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into separate panels have been made, but all have failed. Because all such proposals have failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such a division. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts."

text: The Supreme Court is the only federal court that is explicitly mandated by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that exists today. Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior (i.e., lower) courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Article I courts, which are also known as "legislative courts", consist of regulatory agencies, such as the United States Tax Court. Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts. However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come before Article I courts. In the case of [[Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.[2]]] 59 U.S. 272 (1855), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. This transformed the article IV United States territorial court in Puerto Rico, created in 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court.

text: The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937—frequently called the court-packing plan,[3]— was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six.

text: The Constitution is silent when it comes to judges of courts which have been abolished. The Judiciary Act of 1801 increased the number of courts to permit the Federalist President John Adams to appoint a number of Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. When Jefferson became President, the Congress abolished several of these courts and made no provision for the judges of those courts. Judicial Code of 1911 abolished "circuit riding" and transferred the circuit courts authority and jurisdiction to the district courts.

text: Tenure[edit]

text: The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[4] George W. English,[5] and Samuel B. Kent,[6] chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process.

text: Salaries[edit]

text: The compensation of judges may not be decreased, but may be increased, during their continuance in office.

text: Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury[edit]

text: Section 2 delineates federal judicial power, and brings that power into execution by conferring original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. Additionally, this section requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases.

text: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

text: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

text: Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

text: Clause 1: Cases and controversies[edit]

text: Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only.  Their judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have a genuine interest at stake in the case. In Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suit against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the federal Treasury. The Supreme Court held that, though the United States was a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy; rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation. Thus the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion; therefore, the court dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy."

text: A significant omission is that although Clause 1 provides that federal judicial power shall extend to "the laws of the United States," it does not also provide that it shall extend to the laws of the several or individual states.  In turn, the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent acts never granted the U.S. Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state supreme courts on pure issues of state law.  It is this silence which tacitly made state supreme courts the final expositors of the common law in their respective states.  They were free to diverge from English precedents and from each other on the vast majority of legal issues which had never been made part of federal law by the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court could do nothing about that, as it would ultimately concede in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938).  By way of contrast, other English-speaking federations like Australia and Canada never adopted the Erie doctrine.  That is, their highest courts have always possessed plenary power to impose a uniform nationwide common law upon all lower courts and never adopted the strong American distinction between federal and state common law.

text: Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity[edit]

text: In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), the Supreme Court ruled that Article III, Section 2 abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity and authorized federal courts to hear disputes between private citizens and States.  This decision was overturned by the Eleventh Amendment,  which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 1 Stat. 402 and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795.  It prohibits the federal courts from hearing any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.[7]

text: Clause 2: Original and appellate jurisdiction[edit]

text: Clause 2 of Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party; the Court has held that the latter requirement is met if the United States has a controversy with a state.[8][9] In other cases, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) (the same decision which established the principle of judicial review). Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is different. The Court's appellate jurisdiction is given "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

text: Often a court will assert a modest degree of power over a case for the threshold purpose of determining whether it has jurisdiction, and so the word "power" is not necessarily synonymous with the word "jurisdiction".[10][11]

text: Judicial review[edit]

text: The power of the federal judiciary to review the constitutionality of a  statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an implied power derived in part from Clause 2 of Section 2.[12]

text: Though the Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review, many of the Constitution's Framers viewed such a power as an appropriate power for the federal judiciary to possess.  In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote,

text: The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[13]

text: Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could determine for itself the constitutionality of its actions.

text: A continuation of the text of Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton [below] counterbalances the tone of "judicial supremacists" who demand that both Congress and the Executive are compelled by the Constitution to enforce all court decisions, including those that, in their eyes, or those of the People, violate fundamental American principles.

text: Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.[13] [emphasis added]

text: Hamilton continues. . .

text: It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.[13] [emphasis added]

text: Marbury v. Madison involved a highly partisan set of circumstances. Though Congressional elections were held in November 1800, the newly elected officers did not take power until March. The Federalist Party had lost the elections. In the words of President Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships, which were filled by President John Adams. In the last-minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall had neglected to deliver 17 of the commissions to their respective appointees. When James Madison took office as Secretary of State, several commissions remained undelivered. Bringing their claims under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the appointees, including William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus, which in English law had been used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial duties. Here, Madison would be required to deliver the commissions.

text: Marbury posed a difficult problem for the court, which was then led by Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions when he was the Secretary of State. If Marshall's court commanded James Madison to deliver the commissions, Madison might ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the court. Similarly, if the court denied William Marbury's request, the court would be seen as weak. Marshall held that appointee Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. However, Justice Marshall contended that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, since it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving the States or ambassadors[citation needed]. The ruling thereby established that the federal courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch.

text: However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, expressed the view that the Courts hold only the power of words, and not the power of compulsion upon those other two branches of government, upon which the Supreme Court is itself dependent. Then in 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:

text: You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[14]

text: Clause 3: Federal trials[edit]

text: Clause 3 of Section 2 provides that Federal crimes, except impeachment cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waives his right. Also, the trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.  The United States Senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases.[15]

text: Two of the Constitutional Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights contain related provisions.  The Sixth Amendment enumerates the rights of individuals when facing criminal prosecution and the Seventh Amendment establishes an individual's right to a jury trial in certain civil cases.  It also inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.  The Supreme Court has extended the protections of these amendments to individuals facing trial in state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

text: Section 3: Treason[edit]

text: Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

text: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

text: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

text: The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[16]

text: Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, including the Treason Act 1351, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of royal successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

text: Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[17]

text: In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[18] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

text: Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

text: In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

text: As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

text: Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[19] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power  of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[19]


document_title: Anna DiMera

question_text: who was anna married to on days of our lives

root

text: Anna DiMera

text:
Anna DiMera

Days of our Lives character

Portrayed by
Leann Hunley

Duration

1982–86
2007–10
2017–

First appearance
July 30, 1982 (1982-July-30)

Created by

Margaret DePriest
Sheri Anderson

Introduced by

Betty Corday and Al Rabin (1982)
Ken Corday and Edward J. Scott (2007)

Classification
Present, recurring

Profile

Other names
Anna Fredericks
Anna Brady
Contessa DiMera

Occupation

Executive for DiMera Advertising
Executive for Lumberg Advertising
Owner of Anna DiMera Designs
Personal Secretary to Tony DiMera

Residence
The Tropics

[show]Family

Family

DiMera
Brady

Brothers

Brett Fredericks

Spouse

Roman Brady (197?–82)
Tony DiMera (1983–84, 1985, 2008–09)
Andre DiMera (1985)

Daughters
Carrie Brady

Grandsons
Noah Reed[1][2]

tag: table

text: Anna DiMera is a fictional character on the NBC daytime drama Days of Our Lives. She is the ex-wife of Roman Brady, and the biological mother of Carrie Brady. Created by head writers Margaret DePriest and Sheri Anderson, Anna is portrayed by Leann Hunley.[3] Anna is known for being a member of the powerful, upper class, DiMera family. She was married to Count Antony DiMera until his death in 2009. Hunley initially portrayed Anna from 1982–86. After a twenty-one year absence, Hunley reprised the role of Anna beginning on June 20, 2007, and remained on contract with the show until April 2, 2009. She most recently reprised the role again in early-December 2009 on a recurring basis, after taking a leave of absence from the show and ultimately leaving once more on June 15, 2010. In July 2016, it was reported that Hunley was to again reprise the role of Anna in the upcoming new year, with her return date set for January 9, 2017. [3] Hunley departed on February 16, 2017.[4] In December 2017, it was announced that Hunley would return to the role, beginning January 5, 2018.[5] For her work as Anna, Hunley received a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 1986.

tag: p

text: Character history[edit]

text: Anna Fredericks first arrives in Salem in 1982, searching for Roman Brady, her husband and the father of her daughter, Carrie. For many years, Roman had been under the impression that Anna had been dead, when in reality she had been sold into white slavery. Anna has several red marks on her back, which she claims were from being whipped but were in fact from Multiple Sclerosis.

text: Following her divorce from Roman, Anna takes a job as Tony DiMera's secretary, while working in secret for Stefano DiMera who pays Anna $1,000,000 to have Roman fired from the ISA. To achieve this, Anna has Carrie hypnotized to place fake deposit slips in Roman's home. Although Roman is fired from the police force, the ISA are convinced that Roman had been framed.

text: In 1983, Anna drugs Tony and marries him in Las Vegas, which angers him. Shortly after the wedding, Tony discovers that one of the stipulations of Stefano's will require him to live with Renée DuMonde and David Banning for a year in order to gain his inheritance.

text: At one point in time, she discovers she is pregnant with Tony DiMera`s child, but suffers a miscarriage later on.

text: In 1986, Anna leaves Salem after learning Tony had divorced her. She moves to Europe, where she led a successful career.

text: In 2007, Anna returns to Salem to deliver to the Bradys old DiMera family letters belonging to Tony. She becomes involved in the Brady/DiMera feud, and her romance with Roman is reignited.

text: Then, it is revealed that Tony is alive, stranded on an island for over 20 years, and that Andre is impersonating Tony. Anna and Tony are reunited, and they remarry May 21, 2008. Tony is killed after suffering a heart attack, after a struggle with Philip Kiriakis at the pier resulted in a fall.

text: After the death of Tony, Anna leaves Salem on April 2, 2009. Sydney DiMera is kidnapped in December 2009. On December 18, 2009, Anna is shown on-screen, revealing to the audience as Sydney's kidnapper. In January 2010, it is revealed that EJ actually hired Anna to kidnap Sydney in order to keep her away from Sami. As 2010 progressed, Stefano managed to neutralize her from revealing EJ's part in Sydney's kidnapping, last being seen ambushed in hospital in June 2010. Carrie mentioned Anna in a conversation to Austin during the Christmas season of December 2011. In January 2017, Anna is seen when Marlena bumps into her in Europe, after Anna let loose with a gun at a Prague café, following Marlena's trail in finding Stefano.


document_title: Area of a circle

question_text: where did the formula for area of a circle come from

question_tokens: where did the formula for area of a circle come from

text: Area of a circle

text: History[edit]

text: Modern mathematics can obtain the area using the methods of integral calculus or its more sophisticated offspring, real analysis. However the area of a disk was studied by the Ancient Greeks. Eudoxus of Cnidus in the fifth century B.C. had found that the area of a disk is proportional to its radius squared.[1] Archimedes used the tools of Euclidean geometry to show that the area inside a circle is equal to that of a right triangle whose base has the length of the circle's circumference and whose height equals the circle's radius in his book Measurement of a Circle. The circumference is 2πr, and the area of a triangle is half the base times the height, yielding the area π r2 for the disk. Prior to Archimedes, Hippocrates of Chios was the first to show that the area of a disk is proportional to the square of its diameter, as part of his quadrature of the lune of Hippocrates,[2] but did not identify the constant of proportionality.

text: Historical arguments[edit]

text:
A variety of arguments have been advanced historically to establish the equation

A
=
π

r

2

{\displaystyle A=\pi r^{2}}

 of varying degrees of mathematical rigor. The most famous of these is Archimedes' method of exhaustion, one of the earliest uses of the mathematical concept of a limit, as well as the origin of Archimedes' axiom which remains part of the standard analytical treatment of the real number system. The original proof of Archimedes is not quite rigorous by modern standards, because it assumes that we can compare the length of arc of a circle to the length of a secant and a tangent line, and similar statements about the area, as geometrically evident.

text: Using polygons[edit]

text: The area of a regular polygon is half its perimeter times the apothem. As the number of sides of the regular polygon increases, the polygon tends to a circle, and the apothem tends to the radius. This suggests that the area of a disk is half the circumference of its bounding circle times the radius.[3]

text: Archimedes's proof[edit]

text: Following Archimedes & c. 260 BCE, compare the area enclosed by a circle to a right triangle whose base has the length of the circle's circumference and whose height equals the circle's radius. If the area of the circle is not equal to that of the triangle, then it must be either greater or less. We eliminate each of these by contradiction, leaving equality as the only possibility. We use regular polygons in the same way.

text: Not greater[edit]

text: Suppose that the area C enclosed by the circle is greater than the area T = 1⁄2cr of the triangle. Let E denote the excess amount. Inscribe a square in the circle, so that its four corners lie on the circle. Between the square and the circle are four segments. If the total area of those gaps, G4, is greater than E, split each arc in half. This makes the inscribed square into an inscribed octagon, and produces eight segments with a smaller total gap, G8. Continue splitting until the total gap area, Gn, is less than E. Now the area of the inscribed polygon, Pn = C − Gn, must be greater than that of the triangle.

text: But this forces a contradiction, as follows. Draw a perpendicular from the center to the midpoint of a side of the polygon; its length, h, is less than the circle radius. Also, let each side of the polygon have length s; then the sum of the sides, ns, is less than the circle circumference. The polygon area consists of n equal triangles with height h and base s, thus equals 1⁄2nhs. But since h < r and ns < c, the polygon area must be less than the triangle area, 1⁄2cr, a contradiction. Therefore, our supposition that C might be greater than T must be wrong.

text: Not less[edit]

text: Suppose that the area enclosed by the circle is less than the area T of the triangle. Let D denote the deficit amount. Circumscribe a square, so that the midpoint of each edge lies on the circle. If the total area gap between the square and the circle, G4, is greater than D, slice off the corners with circle tangents to make a circumscribed octagon, and continue slicing until the gap area is less than D. The area of the polygon, Pn, must be less than T.

text: This, too, forces a contradiction. For, a perpendicular to the midpoint of each polygon side is a radius, of length r. And since the total side length is greater than the circumference, the polygon consists of n identical triangles with total area greater than T. Again we have a contradiction, so our supposition that C might be less than T must be wrong as well.

text: Therefore, it must be the case that the area enclosed by the circle is precisely the same as the area of the triangle. This concludes the proof.

text: Rearrangement proof[edit]

text: Following Satō Moshun (Smith & Mikami 1914, pp. 130–132) and Leonardo da Vinci (Beckmann 1976, p. 19), we can use inscribed regular polygons in a different way. Suppose we inscribe a hexagon. Cut the hexagon into six triangles by splitting it from the center. Two opposite triangles both touch two common diameters; slide them along one so the radial edges are adjacent. They now form a parallelogram, with the hexagon sides making two opposite edges, one of which is the base, s. Two radial edges form slanted sides, and the height is h (as in the Archimedes proof). In fact, we can assemble all the triangles into one big parallelogram by putting successive pairs next to each other. The same is true if we increase to eight sides and so on. For a polygon with 2n sides, the parallelogram will have a base of length ns, and a height h. As the number of sides increases, the length of the parallelogram base approaches half the circle circumference, and its height approaches the circle radius. In the limit, the parallelogram becomes a rectangle with width πr and height r.

text:
Unit disk area by rearranging n polygons.

polygon
parallelogram

n

side

base

height

area

4

1.4142136

2.8284271

0.7071068

2.0000000

6

1.0000000

3.0000000

0.8660254

2.5980762

8

0.7653669

3.0614675

0.9238795

2.8284271

10

0.6180340

3.0901699

0.9510565

2.9389263

12

0.5176381

3.1058285

0.9659258

3.0000000

14

0.4450419

3.1152931

0.9749279

3.0371862

16

0.3901806

3.1214452

0.9807853

3.0614675

96

0.0654382

3.1410320

0.9994646

3.1393502

∞

1/∞

π

1

π

text: Modern proofs[edit]

text: There are various equivalent definitions of the constant π. The conventional definition in pre-calculus geometry is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter:

text: However, because the circumference of a circle is not a primitive analytical concept, this definition is not suitable in modern rigorous treatments. A standard modern definition is that π is equal to twice the least positive root of the cosine function or, equivalently, the half-period of the sine (or cosine) function. The cosine function can be defined either as a power series, or as the solution of a certain differential equation. This avoids any reference to circles in the definition of π, so that statements about the relation of π to the circumference and area of circles are actually theorems, rather than definitions, that follow from the analytical definitions of concepts like "area" and "circumference".

text: The analytical definitions are seen to be equivalent, if it is agreed that the circumference of the circle is measured as a rectifiable curve by means of the integral

text:
The integral appearing on the right is an abelian integral whose value is a half-period of the sine function, equal to π. Thus

C
=
2
π
R
=
π
D

{\displaystyle C=2\pi R=\pi D}

 is seen to be true as a theorem.

text:
Several of the arguments that follow use only concepts from elementary calculus to reproduce the formula

A
=
π

r

2

{\displaystyle A=\pi r^{2}}

, but in many cases to regard these as actual proofs, they rely implicitly on the fact that one can develop trigonometric functions and the fundamental constant π in a way that is totally independent of their relation to geometry. We have indicated where appropriate how each of these proofs can be made totally independent of all trigonometry, but in some cases that requires more sophisticated mathematical ideas than those afforded by elementary calculus.

text: Onion proof[edit]

text: Using calculus, we can sum the area incrementally, partitioning the disk into thin concentric rings like the layers of an onion. This is the method of shell integration in two dimensions. For an infinitesimally thin ring of the "onion" of radius t, the accumulated area is 2πt dt, the circumferential length of the ring times its infinitesimal width (one can approximate this ring by a rectangle with width=2πt and height=dt). This gives an elementary integral for a disk of radius r.

text: It is rigorously justified by the multivariate substitution rule in polar coordinates. Namely, the area is given by a double integral of the constant function 1 over the disk itself. If D denotes the disk, then the double integral can be computed in polar coordinates as follows:

text: which is the same result as obtained above.

text:
An equivalent rigorous justification, without relying on the special coordinates of trigonometry, uses the coarea formula. Define a function

ρ
:

R

2

→

R

{\displaystyle \rho :\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} }

 by

ρ
(
x
,
y
)
=

x

2

+

y

2

{\displaystyle \rho (x,y)={\sqrt {x^{2}+y^{2}}}}

. Note ρ is a Lipschitz function whose gradient is a unit vector

|

∇
ρ

|

=
1

{\displaystyle |\nabla \rho |=1}

 (almost everywhere). Let D be the disc

ρ
<
1

{\displaystyle \rho <1}

 in

R

2

{\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}}

. We will show that

L

2

(
D
)
=
π

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}^{2}(D)=\pi }

, where

L

2

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}^{2}}

 is the two-dimensional Lebesgue measure in

R

2

{\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}}

. We shall assume that the one-dimensional Hausdorff measure of the circle

ρ
=
r

{\displaystyle \rho =r}

 is

2
π
r

{\displaystyle 2\pi r}

, the circumference of the circle of radius r. (This can be taken as the definition of circumference.) Then, by the coarea formula,

text: Triangle proof[edit]

text: Similar to the onion proof outlined above, we could exploit calculus in a different way in order to arrive at the formula for the area of a disk. Consider unwrapping the concentric circles to straight strips. This will form a right angled triangle with r as its height and 2πr (being the outer slice of onion) as its base.

text: Finding the area of this triangle will give the area of the disk

text: The opposite and adjacent angles for this triangle are respectively in degrees 9.0430611..., 80.956939... and in radians 0.1578311...  A233527, 1.4129651... A233528.

text:
Explicitly, we imagine dividing up a circle into triangles, each with a height equal to the circle's radius and a base that is infinitesimally small. The area of each of these triangles is equal to

1

/

2
⋅
r
⋅
d
u

{\displaystyle 1/2\cdot r\cdot du}

. By summing up (integrating) all of the areas of these triangles, we arrive at the formula for the circle's area:

text: It too can be justified by a double integral of the constant function 1 over the disk by reversing the order of integration and using a change of variables in the above iterated integral:

text:
Making the substitution

u
=
r
θ
,

d
u
=
r

d
θ

{\displaystyle u=r\theta ,\ du=r\ d\theta }

 converts the integral to

text: which is the same as the above result.

text:
The triangle proof can be reformulated as an application of Green's theorem in flux-divergence form (i.e. a two-dimensional version of the divergence theorem), in a way that avoids all mention of trigonometry and the constant π. Consider the vector field

r

=
x

i

+
y

j

{\displaystyle \mathbf {r} =x\mathbf {i} +y\mathbf {j} }

 in the plane. So the divergence of r is equal to two, and hence the area of a disc D is equal to

text: By Green's theorem, this is the same as the outward flux of r across the circle bounding D:

text:
where n is the unit normal and ds is the arc length measure. For a circle of radius R centered at the origin, we have

|

r

|

=
R

{\displaystyle |\mathbf {r} |=R}

 and

n

=

r

/

R

{\displaystyle \mathbf {n} =\mathbf {r} /R}

, so the above equality is

text:
The integral of ds over the whole circle

∂
D

{\displaystyle \partial D}

 is just the arc length, which is its circumference, so this shows that the area A enclosed by the circle is equal to

R

/

2

{\displaystyle R/2}

 times the circumference of the circle.

text: Semicircle proof[edit]

text:
Note that the area of a semicircle of radius r can be computed by the integral

∫

−
r

r

r

2

−

x

2

d
x

{\displaystyle \int _{-r}^{r}{\sqrt {r^{2}-x^{2}}}\,dx}

.

text:
By trigonometric substitution, we substitute

x
=
r
sin

θ

{\displaystyle x=r\sin \theta }

, hence

d
x
=
r
cos

θ

d
θ
.

{\displaystyle dx=r\cos \theta \,d\theta .}

text:
The last step follows since the trigonometric identity

cos

(
θ
)
=
sin

(
π

/

2
−
θ
)

{\displaystyle \cos(\theta )=\sin(\pi /2-\theta )}

 implies that

cos

2

θ

{\displaystyle \cos ^{2}\theta }

 and

sin

2

θ

{\displaystyle \sin ^{2}\theta }

 have equal integrals over the interval

[
0
,
π

/

2
]

{\displaystyle [0,\pi /2]}

, using integration by substitution. But on the other hand, since

cos

2

θ
+

sin

2

θ
=
1

{\displaystyle \cos ^{2}\theta +\sin ^{2}\theta =1}

, the sum of the two integrals is the length of that interval, which is

π

/

2

{\displaystyle \pi /2}

. Consequently, the integral of

cos

2

θ

{\displaystyle \cos ^{2}\theta }

 is equal to half the length of that interval, which is

π

/

4

{\displaystyle \pi /4}

.

text:
Therefore, the area of a circle of radius r, which is twice the area of the semi-circle, is equal to

2
⋅

π

r

2

2

=
π

r

2

{\displaystyle 2\cdot {\frac {\pi r^{2}}{2}}=\pi r^{2}}

.

text: This particular proof may appear to beg the question, if the sine and cosine functions involved in the trigonometric substitution are regarded as being defined in relation to circles. However, as noted earlier, it is possible to define sine, cosine, and π in a way that is totally independent of trigonometry, in which case the proof is valid by the change of variables formula and Fubini's theorem, assuming the basic properties of sine and cosine (which can also be proved without assuming anything about their relation to circles).

text: Isoperimetric inequality[edit]

text: The circle is the closed curve of least perimeter that encloses the maximum area. This is known as the isoperimetric inequality, which states that if a rectifiable Jordan curve in the Euclidean plane has perimeter C and encloses an area A (by the Jordan curve theorem) then

text:
Moreover, equality holds in this inequality if and only if the curve is a circle, in which case

A
=
π

r

2

{\displaystyle A=\pi r^{2}}

 and

C
=
2
π
r

{\displaystyle C=2\pi r}

.

text: Fast approximation[edit]

text: The calculations Archimedes used to approximate the area numerically were laborious, and he stopped with a polygon of 96 sides. A faster method uses ideas of Willebrord Snell (Cyclometricus, 1621), further developed by Christiaan Huygens (De Circuli Magnitudine Inventa, 1654), described in Gerretsen & Verdenduin (1983, pp. 243–250).

text: Archimedes' doubling method[edit]

text: Given a circle, let un be the perimeter of an inscribed regular n-gon, and let Un be the perimeter of a circumscribed regular n-gon. Then un and Un are lower and upper bounds for the circumference of the circle that become sharper and sharper as n increases, and their average (un + Un)/2 is an especially good approximation to the circumference. To compute un and Un for large n, Archimedes derived the following doubling formulae:

text: Starting from a hexagon, Archimedes doubled n four times to get a 96-gon, which gave him a good approximation to the circumference of the circle.

text: In modern notation, we can reproduce his computation (and go further) as follows. For a unit circle, an inscribed hexagon has u6 = 6, and a circumscribed hexagon has U6 = 4√3. Doubling seven times yields

text:
Archimedes doubling seven times; n = 6×2k.

k

n

un

Un

(un + Un)/4

0

6

6.0000000

6.9282032

3.2320508

1

12

6.2116571

6.4307806

3.1606094

2

24

6.2652572

6.3193199

3.1461443

3

48

6.2787004

6.2921724

3.1427182

4

96

6.2820639

6.2854292

3.1418733

5

192

6.2829049

6.2837461

3.1416628

6

384

6.2831152

6.2833255

3.1416102

7

768

6.2831678

6.2832204

3.1415970

text: (Here (un + Un)/2 approximates the circumference of the unit circle, which is 2π, so (un + Un)/4 approximates π.)

text: The last entry of the table has 355⁄113 as one of its best rational approximations; i.e., there is no better approximation among rational numbers with denominator up to 113. The number 355⁄113 is also an excellent approximation to π, better than any other rational number with denominator less than 16604.[4]

text: The Snell–Huygens refinement[edit]

text: Snell proposed (and Huygens proved) a tighter bound than Archimedes':

text: This for n = 48 gives a better approximation (about 3.14159292) than Archimedes' method for n = 768.

text: Derivation of Archimedes' doubling formulae[edit]

text: Let one side of an inscribed regular n-gon have length sn and touch the circle at points A and B. Let A′ be the point opposite A on the circle, so that A′A is a diameter, and A′AB is an inscribed triangle on a diameter. By Thales' theorem, this is a right triangle with right angle at B. Let the length of A′B be cn, which we call the complement of sn; thus cn2+sn2 = (2r)2. Let C bisect the arc from A to B, and let C′ be the point opposite C on the circle. Thus the length of CA is s2n, the length of C′A is c2n, and C′CA is itself a right triangle on diameter C′C. Because C bisects the arc from A to B, C′C perpendicularly bisects the chord from A to B, say at P. Triangle C′AP is thus a right triangle, and is similar to C′CA since they share the angle at C′. Thus all three corresponding sides are in the same proportion; in particular, we have C′A : C′C = C′P : C′A and AP : C′A = CA : C′C. The center of the circle, O, bisects A′A, so we also have triangle OAP similar to A′AB, with OP half the length of A′B. In terms of side lengths, this gives us

text: In the first equation C′P is C′O+OP, length r+1⁄2cn, and C′C is the diameter, 2r. For a unit circle we have the famous doubling equation of Ludolph van Ceulen,

text: If we now circumscribe a regular n-gon, with side A″B″ parallel to AB, then OAB and OA″B″ are similar triangles, with A″B″ : AB = OC : OP. Call the circumscribed side Sn; then this is Sn : sn = 1 : 1⁄2cn. (We have again used that OP is half the length of A′B.) Thus we obtain

text: Call the inscribed perimeter un = nsn, and the circumscribed perimenter Un = nSn. Then combining equations, we have

text: so that

text: This gives a geometric mean equation.

text: We can also deduce

text: or

text: This gives a harmonic mean equation.

text: Dart approximation[edit]

text: When more efficient methods of finding areas are not available, we can resort to “throwing darts”. This Monte Carlo method uses the fact that if random samples are taken uniformly scattered across the surface of a square in which a disk resides, the proportion of samples that hit the disk approximates the ratio of the area of the disk to the area of the square. This should be considered a method of last resort for computing the area of a disk (or any shape), as it requires an enormous number of samples to get useful accuracy; an estimate good to 10−n requires about 100n random samples (Thijsse 2006, p. 273).

text: Finite rearrangement[edit]

text: We have seen that by partitioning the disk into an infinite number of pieces we can reassemble the pieces into a rectangle. A remarkable fact discovered relatively recently (Laczkovich 1990) is that we can dissect the disk into a large but finite number of pieces and then reassemble the pieces into a square of equal area. This is called Tarski's circle-squaring problem. The nature of Laczkovich's proof is such that it proves the existence of such a partition (in fact, of many such partitions) but does not exhibit any particular partition.

text: Non-Euclidean circles[edit]

text: Circles can be defined in non-Euclidean geometry, and in particular in the hyperbolic and elliptic planes.

text:
For example, the unit sphere

S

2

(
1
)

{\displaystyle S^{2}(1)}

 is a model for the two-dimensional elliptic plane. It carries an intrinsic metric that arises by measuring geodesic length. The geodesic circles are the parallels in a geodesic coordinate system.

text:
More precisely, fix a point

z

∈

S

2

(
1
)

{\displaystyle \mathbf {z} \in S^{2}(1)}

 that we place at the zenith. Associated to that zenith is a geodesic polar coordinate system

(
ϕ
,
θ
)

{\displaystyle (\phi ,\theta )}

,

0
≤
ϕ
≤
π

{\displaystyle 0\leq \phi \leq \pi }

,

0
≤
θ
<
2
π

{\displaystyle 0\leq \theta <2\pi }

, where z is the point

ϕ
=
0

{\displaystyle \phi =0}

. In these coordinates, the geodesic distance from z to any other point

x

∈

S

2

(
1
)

{\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in S^{2}(1)}

 having coordinates

(
ϕ
,
θ
)

{\displaystyle (\phi ,\theta )}

 is the value of

ϕ

{\displaystyle \phi }

 at x. A spherical circle is the set of points a geodesic distance R from the zenith point z. Equivalently, with a fixed embedding into

R

3

{\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{3}}

, the spherical circle of radius

R
≤
π

{\displaystyle R\leq \pi }

 centered at z is the set of x in

S

2

(
1
)

{\displaystyle S^{2}(1)}

 such that

x

⋅

z

=
cos

R

{\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \cdot \mathbf {z} =\cos R}

.

text: We can also measure the area of the spherical disk enclosed within a spherical circle, using the intrinsic surface area measure on the sphere. The area of the disk of radius R is then given by

text:
More generally, if a sphere

S

2

(
ρ
)

{\displaystyle S^{2}(\rho )}

 has radius of curvature

ρ

{\displaystyle \rho }

, then the area of the disk of radius R is given by

text:
Observe that, as an application of L'Hôpital's rule, this tends to the Euclidean area

π

R

2

{\displaystyle \pi R^{2}}

 in the flat limit

ρ
→
∞

{\displaystyle \rho \to \infty }

.

text:
The hyperbolic case is similar, with the area of a disk of intrinsic radius R in the (constant curvature

−
1

{\displaystyle -1}

) hyperbolic plane given by

text:
where cosh is the hyperbolic cosine. More generally, for the constant curvature

−
k

{\displaystyle -k}

 hyperbolic plane, the answer is

text: These identities are important for comparison inequalities in geometry. For example, the area enclosed by a circle of radius R in a flat space is always greater than the area of a spherical circle and smaller than a hyperbolic circle, provided all three circles have the same (intrinsic) radius. That is,

text:
for all

R
>
0

{\displaystyle R>0}

. Intuitively, this is because the sphere tends to curve back on itself, yielding circles of smaller area than those in the plane, whilst the hyperbolic plane, when immersed into space, develops fringes that produce additional area. It is more generally true that the area of the circle of a fixed radius R is a strictly decreasing function of the curvature.

text:
In all cases, if

k

{\displaystyle k}

 is the curvature (constant, positive or negative), then the isoperimetric inequality for a domain with area A and perimeter L is

text: where equality is achieved precisely for the circle.[5]

text: Generalizations[edit]

text: We can stretch a disk to form an ellipse. Because this stretch is a linear transformation of the plane, it has a distortion factor which will change the area but preserve ratios of areas. This observation can be used to compute the area of an arbitrary ellipse from the area of a unit circle.

text: Consider the unit circle circumscribed by a square of side length 2. The transformation sends the circle to an ellipse by stretching or shrinking the horizontal and vertical diameters to the major and minor axes of the ellipse. The square gets sent to a rectangle circumscribing the ellipse. The ratio of the area of the circle to the square is π/4, which means the ratio of the ellipse to the rectangle is also π/4. Suppose a and b are the lengths of the major and minor axes of the ellipse. Since the area of the rectangle is ab, the area of the ellipse is πab/4.

text: We can also consider analogous measurements in higher dimensions. For example, we may wish to find the volume inside a sphere. When we have a formula for the surface area, we can use the same kind of “onion” approach we used for the disk.

text: Bibliography[edit]

text:
Archimedes (1897), "Measurement of a circle", in Heath, T. L., The Works of Archimedes, Cambridge University Press
(Originally published by Cambridge University Press, 1897, based on J. L. Heiberg's Greek version.)
Beckmann, Petr (1976), A History of Pi, St. Martin's Griffin, ISBN 978-0-312-38185-1
Gerretsen, J.; Verdenduin, P. (1983), "Chapter 8: Polygons and Polyhedra", in H. Behnke; F. Bachmann; K. Fladt; H. Kunle, Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume II: Geometry, translated by S. H. Gould, MIT Press, pp. 243–250, ISBN 978-0-262-52094-2
(Originally Grundzüge der Mathematik, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1971.)
Laczkovich, Miklós (1990), "Equidecomposability and discrepancy: A solution to Tarski's circle squaring problem", Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 404: 77–117, MR 1037431 [permanent dead link]
Lange, Serge (1985), "The length of the circle", Math! : Encounters with High School Students, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-96129-3
Smith, David Eugene; Mikami, Yoshio (1914), A history of Japanese mathematics, Chicago: Open Court Publishing, pp. 130–132, ISBN 978-0-87548-170-8
Thijsse, J. M. (2006), Computational Physics, Cambridge University Press, p. 273, ISBN 978-0-521-57588-1

tag: ul


document_title: Jama Masjid, Delhi

question_text: who built the red fort and the jama masjid in delhi

text: Jama Masjid, Delhi

text: History[edit]

text: Mughal emperor Shah Jahan built the Jama Masjid between 1644 and 1656. It was constructed by more than 5000 workers. It was originally called Masjid-i-Jahan-Numa, meaning 'mosque commanding view of the world'. The construction was done under the supervision of Saadullah Khan, wazir (or prime minister) during Shah Jahan's rule. The cost of the construction at the time was one million Rupees.[1] Shah Jahan also built the Taj Mahal, at Agra and the Red Fort in New Delhi, which stands opposite the Jama Masjid. The Jama Masjid was completed in 1656 AD (1066 AH).[1] The mosque was inaugurated by an Imam Bukhari, a mullah from Bukhara, Uzbekistan, on 23 July 1656, on the invitation from Shah Jahan.[2] About 25,000 people can pray in the courtyard at a time and it is sometimes regarded as India's largest mosque.[3][4] The mosque is commonly called "Jama" which means Friday.[1]

text: After the British victory in Revolt of 1857, they confiscated the mosque and stationed their soldiers here.They also wanted to destroy the mosque to punish the people of the city. But due to opposition faced, the demolition was not done.[5]

text: India’s largest mosque is one of the last monuments built under Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan’s time in power. Its construction started in 1650 and was finished in 1656, after which it remained the royal mosque of the emperors until the end of the Mughal period.

text: Modern times[edit]

text: In 2006, it was reported that the mosque was in urgent need of repair and the then Saudi Arabian king Abdullah, offered to pay for it. The Imam said that he had received the offer directly from the Saudi authorities, but requested them to approach the Indian government.[6] However, the Delhi High Court said that this matter had no "legal sanctity" giving no "special equities" to the Imam.

text: 2006 Jama Masjid explosions[edit]

text: On 14 April 2006, there were two explosions which came soon after Friday prayers and occurred in swift succession. However it was unclear, how the blasts occurred. Among the casualties, one was in serious condition, whereas other eight people sustained minor injuries. The then imam, Bukhari commented "here is anger among our people but I am appealing to them to maintain calm".[7]

text: 2010 Jama Masjid attack[edit]

text: On 15 September 2010, two Taiwanese tourists were injured after gunmen on a motorcycle opened fire on a bus parked near gate number three of the mosque.[8] After the attack, the police detained 30 people to question and the area was turned into a fortress because policemen were heavily deployed.[9]

text: In November 2011, the Delhi Police arrested six members of the Indian Mujahideen who were believed to be behind the Jama Masjid blast along with the Pune German bakery blast. Sources said that the "'main man' Imran" allegedly planted the bomb in a car outside the mosque.[10] In September 2013 it was reported that, Yasin Bhatkal, a leader of the group, along with Assadullah Akhtar, were arrested last month and admitted that they carried the attack with on-the-run Pakistani national Waqas. Yasin said that he was ordered by Karachi-based IM head Riyaz Bhatkal to do the task as the Imam allowed "semi-naked" foreigners inside it.[11]

text: Architecture[edit]

text: The mosque has three great gates, four towers and two 40 m high minarets constructed of strips of red sandstone and smooth white marble. The northern gate has 39 steps and the southern side has 33 steps. The eastern gate was the rural entrance and it has 35 steps.[12] Out of all these gateways, the eastern one, which was used by the emperors, remains closed during weekdays.[13] The mosque is built on a red sandstone porch, which is about 30 feet (9.1 m) from ground level and spreads over 1200 square metre.[1] The dome is flanked by two lofty minarets which are 130 feet (40 m) high and consists of 130 steps, longitudinally striped by marble and red sandstone.[12] The minarets consists of five storeys, each with a protruding balcony. The adjoining edifices are filled with calligraphy. The first three storeys of the minarets is made of red sandstone, the fourth of marble and the fifth of sandstone.[1]

text: The courtyard can accommodate 25,000 worshippers and occupies 408 square feet.[14] The mosque is about 261 feet (80 m) long and 90 feet (27 m) wide.[12] The prayer hall measures 61 metre in length and 27.5 metre in breadth.[12] It is made up of high cusped arches and marble domes. The cabinet located in the north gate has a collection of relics of Muhammad – the Quran written on deerskin, a red beard-hair of the prophet, his sandals and his footprints embedded in a marble block.[1]

text: The floor plan of the mosque is similar to that of the Jama Masjid of Agra.[12] It is covered with white and black ornamented marble to look like a Muslim prayer mat. Beside it, a thin black border measuring 3 feet (0.91 m) long and 1.5 feet (0.46 m) wide is marked for the Muslim worshippers. There are 899 total such boxes.[15] The architecture and plan of Badshahi Masjid which was built by Shah Jahan's son Aurangzeb in Lahore is closely related to that of the mosque. Before the Revolt of 1857, there was a madrasa near the southern end of the mosque, which was during the revolt destroyed.[12]

text:
Inlay detail of interior arches

Prayer area.

Detail of a balcony

Courtyard

Courtyard

Courtyard

Exterior wall

text: Notes[edit]

text:
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g "Jama Masjid, Delhi". Cultural India website. Retrieved 19 May 2017.
Jump up ^ Dalrymple, p.252
Jump up ^ Stott and McCulloch, p.35
Jump up ^ "Charming Chadni Chowk" (PDF). Delhi Tourism. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Liddle, p.217
Jump up ^ "Saudi offer to fix Delhi mosque". BBC. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
Jump up ^ "Nine hurt in Delhi mosque blast". BBC. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
Jump up ^ "Tourists shot near Delhi mosque". BBC. 19 September 2010. Retrieved 19 May 2017.
Jump up ^ "4 terrorists involved in Jama Masjid firing: Intelligence sources". India Today. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
Jump up ^ "6 arrested for Pune blast, Jama Masjid attack". IBN Live. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
Jump up ^ "Cops got wrong man for Jama Masjid attack: Bhatkal". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Akhter, p.270
Jump up ^ "Jama Masjid". Tourism India. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Akhter, p.269
Jump up ^ Akhter, p.271

tag: ol


document_title: Hart to Hart

question_text: where is located the house of the hart to hart

text: Hart to Hart

text: Premise[edit]

text: The premise of the show is summed up in the opening credits sequence, narrated by Max (the Harts' butler) as he introduces the characters:

text: This is my boss – Jonathan Hart, a self-made millionaire. He’s quite a guy. This is Mrs. H – she’s gorgeous. What a terrific lady. By the way, my name is Max. I take care of them, which ain't easy, 'cause their hobby is murder.

text: Beginning with Season 2 onward, the opening lines were slightly changed:

text: This is my boss – Jonathan Hart, a self-made millionaire. He’s quite a guy. This is Mrs. H – she’s gorgeous. She’s one lady who knows how to take care of herself. By the way, my name is Max. I take care of both of them – which ain’t easy; ‘cause when they met, it was murder.

text: Jonathan Hart (Robert Wagner) is the CEO of Hart Industries, a Los Angeles-based global conglomerate. His wife Jennifer (Stefanie Powers) is a beautiful freelance journalist. Living the jetset lifestyle, the Harts often find themselves involved in cases of smuggling, theft, corporate and international espionage and, most commonly, murder. At their opulent Bel Air estate, they are assisted by Max (Lionel Stander), their loyal, gravel-voiced butler, cook, and chauffeur who also helps with their cases. The Harts' beloved pet dog is a Löwchen called Freeway, so named because he was a stray that they found wandering on the freeway. The Harts own a Mercedes-Benz 300 TD diesel wagon, a dark green Rolls Royce Corniche convertible (replacing the Series III Bentley custom cabriolet in the first season), and a yellow Mercedes-Benz SL roadster (1979 450 SL, replaced by a 1981 380 SL) with personalized California vanity plates 3 HARTs, 2 HARTs, and 1 HART respectively. The opening credits sequence also shows Jonathan Hart driving a red Dino 246 GTS. They also own a Grumman Gulfstream II private jet, which is featured at the start of the opening credits.

text: Production[edit]

text: Screenwriter and novelist Sidney Sheldon had originally written a script for CBS entitled Double Twist in the early 1970s about a married couple who were also both spies. The script remained unfilmed for several years before producers Aaron Spelling and Leonard Goldberg decided to update the idea for a potential television series. They offered the script to screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz, who had by that time written several screenplays including three of the James Bond films.

text: Their instruction to Mankiewicz was to update the script to make it more contemporary and viable for a potential weekly series. They also told Mankiewicz that if his draft was successful, he would also be able to direct the pilot episode himself.[1] Mankiewicz reworked Sheldon's original script and it was renamed Hart to Hart, emphasizing the romantic aspect of the couple. Mankiewicz also made his directorial debut with the pilot episode as planned, and remained a creative consultant to the series afterwards.

text: Spelling and Goldberg's initial choice for the role of Jonathan Hart was Cary Grant. However, Grant (who was 75 years old at the time) had effectively retired from acting some years earlier (with his last film Walk Don't Run in 1966). They then decided to find a younger actor who might embody the same style, zest and persona that Grant was famous for and offered the role to Robert Wagner. No one else was seriously considered for the role; George Hamilton had a high profile at the time and was suggested but Aaron Spelling said that if he was cast "the audience will resent him as Hart for being that rich. But no one will begrudge RJ [Wagner] a nickel."[2]

text: ABC wanted Wagner's real life wife Natalie Wood to co-star with him as Jennifer Hart but Wagner didn't think it was a good idea (however, Wood makes a cameo appearance in the pilot). Initial choices for the role of Jennifer Hart included Suzanne Pleshette, Kate Jackson and Lindsay Wagner, but Wagner suggested Stefanie Powers who had previously worked with him when she made a guest appearance in an episode of his action-adventure series It Takes a Thief in 1970.[2]

text: Wagner wanted Sugar Ray Robinson to portray Max but ABC-TV executives were worried about a black man playing the butler/houseman to a rich white couple. Eventually they cast Lionel Stander, who had also worked with Wagner in an episode of It Takes a Thief. In that episode ("King of Thieves"), he also played a character named Max who was a lifelong friend.

text: The main title theme for the series was scored by Mark Snow.

text: Fashion and jewelry designer Nolan Miller, who later designed the clothes for Dynasty, was the costume designer for show.

text: The ranch-style house used for exterior filming was previously owned by actors Dick Powell and his wife, June Allyson. Powell was an old friend of both Robert Wagner and Aaron Spelling. The actual estate, known as Amber Hills, is situated on 48 acres in the Mandeville Canyon section of Brentwood, Los Angeles. In the series, the Harts' address is given as 3100 Willow Pond Road, Bel Air: the real address of the house is 3100 Mandeville Canyon Road.

text: Episodes[edit]

text: Ratings[edit]

text:
Season 1 (1979–80): Not in the Top 30
Season 2 (1980–81): #23 (15.9 million viewers)
Season 3 (1981–82): #15 (17.1 million viewers)
Season 4 (1982–83): #17 (15.7 million viewers)
Season 5 (1983–84): #41

text: TV movies[edit]

text: In 1993, almost a decade after the series ended, Wagner and Powers reunited for a series of Hart to Hart TV movies. Eight 90-minute telemovies were made in total between 1993-96:

text:
Hart to Hart Returns (November 5, 1993)
Home is Where the Hart Is (February 18, 1994)
Crimes of the Hart (March 25, 1994)
Old Friends Never Die (May 6, 1994)
Secrets of the Hart (March 6, 1995)
Two Harts in 3/4 Time (November 26, 1995)
Harts in High Season (March 24, 1996)
Till Death Do Us Hart (August 25, 1996)

text: Lionel Stander reprised his role as Max in five of the movies before his death (from lung cancer) November 30, 1994. His last ever screen appearance was in Secrets of the Hart, which aired in March 1995.

text: Remake[edit]

text: In September 2015, Deadline.com reported that NBC had made a script commitment to a Hart to Hart remake series featuring a gay male couple. Written by Christopher Fife and produced by Carol Mendelsohn and Julie Weitz, the new series is described as "a modern and sexy retelling of the classic series that focuses on by-the-book attorney Jonathan Hart and free-spirited investigator Dan Hartman, who must balance the two sides of their life: action-packed crime-solving in the midst of newly found domesticity."[3] A similar project had been announced more than a decade earlier in 2002, with Alan Cumming attached to star in a series being developed for ABC that was being touted as a "gay Hart to Hart". Titled Mr and Mr Nash, the planned series featured a gay couple, both interior designers, who "stumble upon a murder each week", but it ultimately never went into production.[4]

text: DVD releases[edit]

text: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment released the first two seasons of Hart to Hart on DVD in Regions 1 & 2 in 2005/2006.

text: In 2010/2011, Sony Pictures released all eight TV-Movies on DVD individually via the Warner Archive Collection. These were Manufacture-on-Demand (MOD) releases and are available exclusively through WBShop.com and Amazon.com. On October 2, 2012, Sony released all eight TV-Movies in two volume collections entitled Hart to Hart - TV Movie Collection, Volume 1 and Hart to Hart - TV Movie Collection, Volume 2.[5] These are also Manufacture-on-Demand (MOD) releases, available via Amazon.com and are part of the Sony Choice Collection.

text: On September 4, 2014, it was announced that Shout! Factory had acquired the rights to the series for Region 1. They released Season 3 in December 2014, Season 4 in February 2015, the fifth and final season in June 2015, and The Complete Series on May 30, 2017.[6][7][8][9][8][10]

text:
DVD Name
Ep#
Release Dates

Region 1 (USCA)
Region 2 (DACH)
Region 2 (UKIE)

The Complete First Season
23
October 25, 2005
November 8, 2005
April 10, 2006

The Complete Second Season
20
September 19, 2006
September 19, 2006
October 9, 2006

The Complete Third Season
24
December 9, 2014
TBA
TBA

The Complete Fourth Season
22
February 10, 2015
TBA
TBA

The Complete Fifth and Final Season
22
June 9, 2015
TBA
TBA

The Complete Series
111
May 30, 2017
TBA
TBA

Hart to Hart - TV Movie Collection, Volume 1
4
October 2, 2012
N/A
N/A

Hart to Hart - TV Movie Collection, Volume 2
4
October 2, 2012
N/A
N/A

text: Awards and nominations[edit]

text: International broadcasts[edit]

text:
In the United Kingdom, the show was shown on Sundays at 7.45pm nationally on the ITV Network for most of its run, though was later subject to regional variations. It was subsequently shown on Sky One, Granada Plus, The Family Channel, and Alibi.
In Norway, the show was shown on NRK as "Par i Hjerter" ("Pair of Hearts").
In Sweden, the show was shown on SVT as "Par i Hjärter" ("Pair of Hearts"); the first time in 1983.
In Denmark, the show was shown on TV3 as "Par i Hjerter" ("Pair of Hearts").
In France, the show was shown on TF1 as "Pour l'amour du risque" ("For The Love Of Risk"). It has been shown on Direct 8 since 2012.
In Germany and Austria the show was shown on ARD, ORF and later with all episodes on ProSieben, Kabel eins, Das Vierte, ZDFneo and TNT Serie Via Sky Deutschland as "Hart aber herzlich", which translates to "Hard but hearty" or "Tough but hearty" and thus mimicked the original pun. The movies were shown on ProSieben.
In Ireland, the show was shown on RTÉ One.
In Israel, the show was shown on Channel 1 as "Hart ve'Ishto" ("Hart and his wife").
In Italy the show was first shown on Rai 2 television beginning from June 1981, and then re-run many times. The new Italian title is "Cuore e batticuore", which translates to "Heart and heartbeat". Since June 2007 the show is aired on La7 television with the original title. Since June 2010 on CIELO TV channel.
In Spain, the show was shown on TVE-1 between 1982 and 1987, and then later on Antena 3 and Telecinco; as "Hart y Hart" (Hart & Hart).
In Brazil, the show was shown on Rede Globo with the title "Casal 20," which translates roughly into English as "Couple 20," meaning a perfect couple, one where both have perfect marks (i.e., twice 10, as 10 is the highest mark a very good student can obtain in most Brazilian schools). The expression was introduced into popular language at that time by the show, and over three decades later, it is still current in Brazilian Portuguese.
In Costa Rica, the show was shown on Teletica Canal 7.
In Serbia, the show was shown on TV Palma.
In Kenya, the show was shown on Voice of Kenya (VOK) TV now KBC TV.
In the Netherlands, the show was shown on TROS as "Harten Twee" ("Two of Hearts").
In Greece, the show was shown on ERT2 as "Hart ké Hart" ("Hart and Hart"), subsequently on ANT1 and finally on the regional Makedonia Channel.
In Mexico, the show was shown on Televisa as "Los Hart, investigadores" ("Hart, detectives").
In Japan, the show was shown on TBS as "Tantei Hart and Hart".
In Australia, the show was first broadcast by the Nine Network throughout its original run. In the 21st century it has been repeated on 7Two.
In Turkey, the show was shown on TRT1 as "Tehlike Çemberi" ("Wheel of Danger").
In Romania it was shown during the afternoon time slot in the mid 2000s on Antena 1

text: The Greatest Event in Television History (2013)[edit]

text: On June 6, 2013 (June 7 in the Eastern Time Zone), Adult Swim aired an edition of The Greatest Event in Television History. Hosted by Jeff Probst, the program went behind the scenes during the making of a shot-for-shot remake of the Hart to Hart opening sequence, with Adam Scott and Amy Poehler respectively in the roles of Jonathan and Jennifer Hart, and Horatio Sanz as Max.[11] The remake followed a similar effort in the fall of 2012, adapting the opening credit sequence of Simon & Simon.