Who was the founder of Kerala Deepika; the first malayalam paper published from Malabar? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Who was the founder of Kerala Deepika; the first malayalam paper published from Malabar?

Answer: Chengulathu Kunhirama Menon

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Who was the founder of Kerala Deepika, the first malayalam paper published from Malabar?....

QA->Who was the founder of Kerala Deepika; the first malayalam paper published from Malabar?....

QA->In which year the publication of Deepika was started from Kottayam under the name Nasrani Deepika?....

QA->Vakkom Moulavi Published the journal "Deepika" in....

QA->Malabar was brought under the British control in 1792 and theJoint Commissioners published a code in:....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and solve the questions based on it. a.Six Indian professors from six different institutions (Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Pluto, Uranus) went to China to attend an international conference on “Sustainability and Innovation in Management: A Global Scenario” and they stayed in six successive rooms on the second floor of a hotel (201 _ 206). b.Each of them has published papers in a number of journals and has donated to a number of institutions last year. c.The professor in room no. 202 has published in twice as many journals as the professor who donated to 8 institutions last year. d.The professor from Uranus and the Professor in room number 206 together published in a total of 40 journals. e.The professor from Jupiter published in 8 journals less than the professor from Pluto but donated to 10 more institutions last year. f.Four times the number of 4 journal publications by the professor in room number 204 is lesser than the number of institutions to which he donated last year. g.The professor in room number 203 published in 12 journals and donated to 8 institutions last year. h.The professor who published in 16 journals donated to 24 institutions last year. i.The professor in room number 205 published in 8 journals and donated to 2 institutions less than the professor from Mercury last year. The Mercury professor is staying in an odd numbered room. j.The Mars professor is staying two rooms ahead of Pluto professor who is staying two rooms ahead of the Mercury professor in ascending order of room numbers. k.The professors from Mercury and Jupiter do not stay in room number 206.In which room is the Mars professor staying?
...

MCQ-> Answer the questions based on the following information. Five women decided to go for shopping to South Extension, New Delhi. They arrived at the designated meeting place in the following order: 1. Aradhana, 2. Chandrima, 3. Deepika, 4. Heena and 5. Sumitra. Each of them spent at least Rs. 1000. The woman who spent Rs. 2234 arrived before the woman who spent Rs. 1193. One of them spent Rs. 1340 and she was not Deepika. One woman spent Rs. 1378 more than Chandrima. One of them spent Rs. 2517 and she was not Aradhana. Heena spent more than Deepika. Sumitra spent the largest amount and Chandrima the smallest.What was the amount spent by Heena?
...

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage: A new paper published by Rochman and her colleagues in February, in the journal Ecology, sifts through past research on marine debris to assess the true extent of the environmental threat. Plenty of studies have sounded alarm bells about the state of marine debris: Rochman and her colleagues set out to determine how many of those perceived risks are real Often. Rochman says, scientists will wrap up a paper by speculating about the broader impacts of what they've found. Maybe their study has shown that certain seabirds eat plastic bags, for example, and the paper goes on to warn that whole bird populations are at risk of dying out. "But the truth was that nobody had yet tested those perceived threats." Rochman says. "There wasn't a lot of information." Rochman and her colleagues examined more than a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris that were published through 2013. Within each paper. they asked what threats scientists had studied-366 perceived threats in all and what they'd actually found. In 83 percent of cases, the perceived dangers of ocean trash were proven true. In most of the remaining cases. the working group found the studies too shoddy to draw conclusions from—they lacked a control group, for example. or used faulty statistics. Strikingly. Rochman says, only one well-designed study failed to find the effect it was looking for, an investigation of mussels ingesting microscopic plastic bits. The plastic moved from the mussels' stomachs to their bloodstreams. scientists found. and stayed there for weeks—but didn't seem to stress out the shellfish. A lot of ocean debris is "microplastic," or pieces smaller than five millimetres. These may be the beads from a facial scrub. fibres shed by synthetic clothing in the wash. or eroded remnants of larger debris. Compared to the number of studies investigating large-scale debris. Roclunan's group found little research on the effects of these tiny bits. There are also, she adds, a lot of open questions about the ways that ocean debris can lead to sea-creature death. Many studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal or that animal's tissues or cells, rather than whole populations. And in the lab, scientists often use higher concentrations of plastic than what's really in the ocean. None of that tells us how many birds or fish or sea turtles could die form plastic pollution or how deaths in one species could affect that animal's predators, or the rest of the ecosystem. "We need to be asking more ecologically relevant questions." Rothman says. Usually, scientists don't know how disasters like oil spills or nuclear meltdowns will affect the environment until after they've happened. she says. "We don't ask the right questions early enough." But if ecologists can understand how the slow-moving disaster of ocean garbage is affecting ecosystems. they might be able to prevent things from getting worse.Which ONE of the following conclusions based on the examination of the hundred-odd papers on marine debris and its ecological impact by Rachman and her colleagues is NOT CORRECT?
...

MCQ-> Mathematicians are assigned a number called Erdos number (named after the famous mathematician, Paul Erdos). Only Paul Erdos himself has an Erdos number of zero. Any mathematician who has written a research paper with Erdos has an Erdos number of 1.For other mathematicians, the calculation of his/her Erdos number is illustrated below:Suppose that a mathematician X has co-authored papers with several other mathematicians. 'From among them, mathematician Y has the smallest Erdos number. Let the Erdos number of Y be y. Then X has an Erdos number of y+1. Hence any mathematician with no co-authorship chain connected to Erdos has an Erdos number of infinity. :In a seven day long mini-conference organized in memory of Paul Erdos, a close group of eight mathematicians, call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, discussed some research problems. At the beginning of the conference, A was the only participant who had an infinite Erdos number. Nobody had an Erdos number less than that of F.On the third day of the conference F co-authored a paper jointly with A and C. This reduced the average Erdos number of the group of eight mathematicians to 3. The Erdos numbers of B, D, E, G and H remained unchanged with the writing of this paper. Further, no other co-authorship among any three members would have reduced the average Erdos number of the group of eight to as low as 3.• At the end of the third day, five members of this group had identical Erdos numbers while the other three had Erdos numbers distinct from each other.• On the fifth day, E co-authored a paper with F which reduced the group's average Erdos number by 0.5. The Erdos numbers of the remaining six were unchanged with the writing of this paper.• No other paper was written during the conference.The person having the largest Erdos number at the end of the conference must have had Erdos number (at that time):
...

MCQ-> Read the following information carefully and answer the questions given below: Following are the conditions for short listing candidates for the post of Marketing officer for Payment bank. The candidate to be called for interview must (i) be a graduate in Science, i.e. B.Sc, with minimum 55% marks. (ii) have at least 3 years experience in selling/marketing (iii) have participated in debating or drama or sports at the intercollegiate level onwards. (iv) have secured minimum 60% marks in the Written Examination (WE) (v) be ready to deposit Rs 10,000 as security deposit. However, in case of a candidate who fulfils all these criteria except (a) (iv) above, but has secured minimum 60% at B.Sc, may be referred to the Chief Manager (b) (i) above, but has passed M.Sc, i.e. Post Graduation in Science, with minimum 50% marks, may be referred to DGM Based on these criteria and information provided below, decide the course of action in each case. You are not to assume anything. If the data provided is not adequate given course of action, your answer will be ‘data inadequate’. All the candidates given below fulfill the criterion for age. Mark Answer If the decision is as follows a: Selection for Interview b: Not to be selected c: Data inadequate d: Refer to Chief Manager (C.R) e: Refer to the DGM(C.R)Deepika is a 26 years girl having obtained 60% marks in Post-Graduation. I.e M.sc,. 53 % and 64 % in B.sc and W.E . respectively .Deepika has worked as sales executive for three and half years.She has obtained many prizes in intercollegiate events in debating and ready to deposit Rs 10,000 as security deposit.
...