Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

Preparing your Team for the Future

Fabian Scarano PA Consulting Group Fabian.scarano@paconsulting.com

Abstract
Whilst technology develops with the objective of operating with more functionality and less human intervention, the individuals requirement in these cases demand more specific and targeted skills as well as higher performance than today. The soft skills conquer steadily a major role to cope with the actual demand. This paper focus on some of these soft skills, which after an analysis, will have a serious impact in a near future instead of concentrating in a 40 years or any further timeline. The study examines: understanding the abstraction level to communicate at work; creativity as a result of positive thinking; and self efficacy in the context of stress mitigation. In addition to this, the increasing multicultural and multidisciplinary working environment will be looked closely to determine the areas of improvement and study some recent publications.

1. Introduction
Once the future was described as flying cars overall cities, few or no problems on earth, robots doing all our work and many other science fiction descriptions. Unfortunately today we face a threatening climate change, menaces against democracy, globalization disasters, and moral deterioration. But this comparison it is only used to explain why the focus of this paper remains within the near future instead of a projection in 40 or 50 years, the chances to get a 40 years prediction wrong are quite high. We would not like to leave the reader with a melancholic state in his/her existence, therefore the following explanation about this negative feeling of the future. It has already been studied for almost 100 years ago, by Spengler in his Der Untergang des Abendlandes, who gives also a depressive diagnosis of the future and still to come if not an erroneous prediction. What really happens is that ideas and culture have a cycle: they get born, mature, flourish and have their downhill period until they are abandoned. So no negative ideas, just warnings that make us sail in the waves of life.

2. Setting the scene

The development haste is bound to continue in the future, performance needs to be better and faster: We need to become top performers as individuals and to contribute to make our team more effective and efficient. To achieve these objectives the technical skills and a high IQ are not sufficient. The research carried out in the area showed that when top performance, flexibility and team creativity are required, then personal and social abilities have a main role. The conscious opening and understanding of our emotional competencies enhances personal performance and makes the teams more effective. (Observe that emotions are different from feelings) To make the most of our test team and the testers it is necessary to focus, besides the technical skills and a high IQ on the soft skills

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

Which soft skills areas? This study concentrates on: Abstraction, creativity, optimism and communication within the team Open mind to: work together with different cultures, accept wild solutions and exercise more empathy Integration of teams with diverse goals and optimisation of the final product with the different teams The objective today is to give the test participants emotional intelligence awareness, in three aspects: the influence of abstraction, the humor as a mean to creativity and self-efficacy as a mean to understand stress mitigation. If emotional competences are considered today important, in the future test manager will have to master a great deal of them and any competent test team would have to be aware and practice them on a daily basis.

3. Communication: Abstraction
In the last 8 years I have observed and then studied abstraction as a means of better communicating and achieving a closer understanding between testers, business and the rest of the project members. Why is difficult for us to explain the meaning of things? Because this word meaning depends on the mental state of each individual. But if this is true then we may deduce that nothing is exactly the same for two different people. In order to have two minds aligned to perfection, in all detail level, they should be identical. However one of the examples that we may get closer to this concept is in mathematics, when we talk about things like one, three or five they have a quite commonly agreed understanding. Anyhow something so impersonal like a number five, is never isolated in the mind of a person, it is part of a vast network. We can think of five to count things, to make it correspond to our right hand fingers, as a side of a dice or as a design of a pentagon, and many more. Let us take a look to two definitions of abstraction. Abstraction is the process or result of generalisation by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically, in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose (Wikipedia) or in philosophical terminology Abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects. In both cases the object or definition is distanced from the idea, the colour red, number 3 or happiness are abstraction examples and not everybody pictures them in the same way in their mind. The same situation repeats when trying to get the users write requirement specification, test scripts, report defects, etc. Often this misinterpretation or not understanding, does not lay in the business process knowledge of our receptor, but in the ability of building up this activity distanced from the object in their minds. All learning involves abstraction not only in mathematics. From the first year of life, the ability to conceptualise is necessary for understanding. We need to be able to make generalisations from concrete experiences. This requires the ability to think abstractly However we, test managers, expose often our users and clients to complicated abstraction tasks, which they are not used to and they do not exercise at all in their daily work: writing requirement specification or test scripts, describing defects are frequently beyond theirs need. In order to give a better idea of how difficult could be sometimes to expose the people working with us to perform in a higher level of abstraction, I have chosen to go through an example, which is exhaustive and gradually demands a higher level of abstraction, then the reader have the opportunity to realise that although the words are clear and the concepts and theorems are explained in an easy way, the challenge remains in the abstraction level the reader can achieve. Note that a higher abstraction level does not relate in this case to intelligence, is just another way of working and training. Even if the reader does not understand every single step I encourage you to go through the example

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

EXAMPLE (exhaustive) Imagine that the genius mathematician Cantor is our user, we ask him to write a requirement specification and lets say that he does not realise how to do it. Then he offers to explain us the subject so we can help him in the task. Some of the proofs, short and simple as they are, will make you dizzy. But that's part of the amazing phenomenon to be savored, not a difficulty to lament. To begin: Almost a definition. Intuitively, a set is a collection of elements. The intuitive notion of a set leads to paradoxes, and there is considerable mathematical and philosophical disagreement about how best to refine the intuitive notion. Fortunately, none of the disagreements or refinements matters for our purposes here. I only bring up this complexity so that you'll accept the intuitive notion in place of a refined definition for the purposes of this crash course. Notation. When we want to list the members of a set, we use curly brackets. So if set S contains elements A, B, and C, then we say S = {A, B, C}. The null set is the empty set or the set with no members. Notation: . Hence, = {}. Abbreviation. For if and only if I will sometimes write simply iff. Definition. Set A is a subset of set B iff all the members of A are also members of B. Notation. A B. It follows from this definition that every set is a subset of itself. Definition. Set A is a proper subset of set B iff all the members of A are also members of B, but not all the members of B are members of A. Notation. A B. It follows from this definition that no set is a proper subset of itself. Definition. The cardinality of a set is the number of members it contains. Notation. The cardinality of set S is |S|. For example, if S = {A, B, C}, then |S|=3. Hence while S is a set, |S| is a number. When S is an infinite set, |S| will be an infinite number. Technically, |S| is a cardinal number, as opposed to an ordinal number. This doesn't matter for what follows, but it might help you remember the term cardinality. A cardinal number answers the question how many? An ordinal number answers the question which one? Natural numbers are used both ways in different contexts. For example, 3 is used as a cardinal number when we say there are "three blind mice" or "three bags full", but it is used as an ordinal number when we say "the third pig built with brick" or "curtain number three". Sets have cardinality, that is, size or magnitude: they have some definite number of members. But they do not have ordinality: their members are not in any particular order; for example, {A, B, C} = {B, A, C}. In this brief exposition, I introduce the mathematics of infinite cardinal numbers and ignore the infinite ordinals. Definition. Two sets can be put into one-to-one correspondence iff their members can be paired off such that each member of the first set has exactly one counterpart in the second set, and each member of the second set has exactly one counterpart in the first set. Notation. If sets A and B can be put into one-to-one correspondence, then we say A B. Putting two infinite sets into one-to-one correspondence is an infinite task, and we don't pretend that we can do it (that is, finish it) in finite time. To show that an infinite set, like the even numbers, can be put into one-to-one correspondence with another, like the odd numbers, we need only produce a rule-governed sequence for each set which runs through the members without omission or repetition, for example, 2, 4, 6... and 1, 3, 5.... If we can do so, then we know that the nth term of one sequence will have a counterpart in the nth term of the other, and vice versa, guaranteeing one-to-one correspondence all the way out. We will soon see that there are infinite sets larger than the set of natural numbers (Theorem 3 below), and for them no such sequences can be constructed. However, for cardinalities of that magnitude, most of our proofs will show the absence or failure, rather than the presence, of one-to-one correspondence. Definition. Two sets have the same cardinality iff they can be put into one-to-one correspondence; or, if A B, then |A| = |B|. This definition applies to infinite as well as to finite sets.

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

It follows from the last three definitions that set A has a larger cardinality than set B iff both (1) a proper subset of A and the whole of B can be put into one-to-one correspondence, and (2) the whole of A cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with any proper subset of B. Definition. The power set of a set S is the set of all the subsets of S. Notation. The power set of S is *S. For example, if S = {A, B, C}, then *S = {{A,B,C}, {A,B}, {A,C}, {B,C}, {A}, {B}, {C}, }. The power set of a given set always contains the given set itself and the null set. Note that while the members of S may be any sort of things (bugles, baseball teams, Byronic poems), the members of *S are other sets. |*S| is the cardinality of the power set of S. As you can see from the example above, when S has 3 3 |S| members, then *S has 2 or 8 members. In general, when S is finite, then |*S| = 2 . We will assume the power set axiom, i.e. that all sets have power sets. Reminder. The natural numbers are the whole positive numbers (sometimes called the "counting numbers"), including zero: 0, 1, 2, 3 .... This is really a definition, but by calling it a "reminder" I'm hoping to get on your good side. Notation. The set of natural numbers is designated by N. Notation. The number of natural numbers is designated by . " is the first letter of the Hebrew " 0 alphabet, pronounced Aleph. " " is pronounced Aleph-null or Aleph-nought. We will justify the 0 zero subscript when we prove that no infinite set has a smaller cardinality than the set of natural numbers (Theorem 6). Hence = |N|, by definition. 0 Now you know how many natural numbers there are: . But this is not profound. So far we've 0 only invented a name (numeral) for the number of natural numbers. Definition. A set is countable iff its cardinality is either finite or equal to 0. A set is denumerable iff its cardinality is exactly
0.

A set is uncountable iff its cardinality is greater than

0.

The null set is countable. The finite set, {A, B, C}, is countable. The infinite set, N, is countable and denumerable. Sets with a larger cardinality than N are uncountable. Definition. A transfinite number or transfinite cardinal is the cardinality of some infinite set. If we use the term "infinite" in a restricted and precise way, then "transfinite" is just a synonym for it. We could avoid fancy new terms to prevent confusion. However, "infinite" has many imprecise and non-technical uses for example, the infinite setting on a camera's range-finder so it often helps to use a technical term to avoid ambiguity. Reminder. The integers are the natural numbers plus their negative counterparts, ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3.... Notation. The set of integers is designated by Z. Reminder. The rational numbers are the integers plus the rational fractions (those that can be expressed as the ratio of two integers). Notation. The set of rational numbers is designated by Q. For example, 0.75 is a rational fraction because we can express it as the ratio of two integers, namely, 3/4. Therefore it is a rational number. The irrational numbers are the fractions that are not rational numbers, both positive and negative. For example, we can prove that pi (3.14159...) cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers. Therefore it is an irrational number. Reminder. The real numbers are the rational numbers plus the irrational numbers. Notation. The set of real numbers is designated by R. We started with the natural numbers, then added infinitely many negative whole numbers to get the integers, then added infinitely many rational fractions to get the rationals, and then added infinitely many irrational fractions to get the reals. It's tempting to conclude that with each infinite addition we increased cardinality, or in short:

|N| < |Z| < |Q| < |R|

But is this true? Here we encounter one of the first points at which the mathematics of the infinite violates our intuitions. If each addition did increase cardinality, that would violate our sense that "infinity is infinity"

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

or that all infinite sets are equal in cardinality. But if any of these additions did not increase cardinality, that would violate our sense that the cardinality of a set grows when we add members. Before we learn the truth, and see how it violates our intuitions, it's wise to remember that its negation would also have violated our intuitions. At the very beginning, therefore, we should not demand conformity with our intuitions so much as clear definitions and rigorous proofs. Foreshadowing. Both the intuitions mentioned in the preceding paragraph are false. (1) Not all infinities are equal in cardinality, and (2) some additions, even infinite additions, do not increase cardinality. The string of inequalities,

|N| < |Z| < |Q| < |R|, is also false. = |Z|.

Theorem 1. The set of integers has the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers, or |N|

Proof. If we try to list the integers, we note that they trail off with three dots in two directions: ...3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3.... Left in that form they would be hard to put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. But if we alternate one positive and one negative integer, then they form a single infinite sequence, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3..., and we can easily put them into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.... This method of alternating the members of two infinite sequences in order to make a single sequence is called interlacing. Cantor used it often and so will we. Theorem 2. The set of rational numbers has the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers, or

|N| = |Q|.
It's much harder to find a method for putting the rational numbers into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers than it was for the integers. The reason is that the rational numbers are dense, that is, between any two of them there is a third. For example, between 123/987 and 124/987 there is 123.5/987, which resolves into 247/1974. This means, in fact, that between any two there are infinitely many others. It also means that for any given rational number, there is no such thing as the next greater, or the next lesser, rational number. But Cantor found a very clever method for laying out the rational numbers so that they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the naturals. Proof. The following table shows Cantor's method for putting the rationals and naturals into one-to-one correspondence:

Numerators 1 Denominators 1 2 3 2 3 4...

1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1... 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2... 1/3 2/3 3/3 4/3...

4... 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4...

The two shaded axes list all the possible natural number numerators, and all the possible natural number denominators. The interior part of the table uses the axes to compose all the rational fractions, which are all the rational numbers. Now we read off the rationals in this order: starting with the 1/1 in the upper left corner, we move right to 2/1, then diagonally down and to the left, then down, then diagonally up and to the right, and so on, eventually passing through every cell in the grid. The first 10 numbers in our journey are: 1/1, 2/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 4/1, 3/2, 2/3, 1/4.... But as the following table shows, this sequence can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers:

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

Rationals 1/1 2/1 1/2 1/3 2/2 3/1 4/1 3/2 2/3 1/4...

Naturals

9...

This method of enumerating the rationals includes each rational number more than once. For example, it will include 1/1, 2/2, 3/3..., each of which is equal to 1. In fact, every rational number will be represented infinitely many times. Technically, this violates the conditions of strict one-to-one correspondence. But in fact we can leave the duplicates in the enumeration without harming the proof, for we are then proving that the rationals plus the duplicates is still no greater in cardinality than the naturals. This means that the rationals are at most as numerous as the naturals. We already know that the rationals are at least numerous as the naturals (because the naturals are a proper subset of the rationals). Therefore, the rationals are exactly as numerous as the naturals. (Can you see why if some set A is at least as numerous as another set B, and at most as numerous as B, then it must be exactly as numerous as B?) In Theorems 1 and 2 we saw that two kinds of infinite addition to an infinite set did not increase the cardinality of the original set. But we cannot generalize too quickly and say that such additions will never increase the cardinality of the original set. Our next theorem shows that some sets can indeed be larger than the natural numbers, and in Theorem 16 we will see that the additions to the naturals required to generate the real numbers do indeed create an uncountable set. Theorem 3. The power set of the set of natural numbers has a greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers, i.e. it is uncountable; or |*N| > |N|. Proof. We give a negative proof, and assume that the natural numbers can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the sets of natural numbers. Let this hypothetical pairing off be represented by the leftmost columns of the following table.

The nat. nos. in 1-1 Are these nos. members of the set listed at left? correspondence with the sets thereof 0 1 2 3... (hypothetically) 0 1 2 ... evens odds squares ... Yes No Yes ... No Yes Yes ... yes no no ... no... yes... no... ...

In the shaded row of the table we again enumerate the natural numbers. The "yeses" and "noes" in the body of the table below them tell us whether the natural numbers in the shaded row above them are members of the sets to the left of them. For example, take the "yes" written in red. It is in the column of natural number 1, and in the row of the set of odd numbers; it says "yes" because 1 is indeed a member of the set of odd numbers. In this way, we represent every set of natural numbers (down the left column) as an infinite string of "yeses" and "noes". Conversely, we can read any string of "yeses" and "noes" as code for a particular set of natural numbers.

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

From the "yes" in the upper left corner of the block of "yeses" and "noes", move diagonally downward and to the right, following the yellow cells. Toggle each "yes" we encounter to a "no" and vice versa. The resulting infinite string of "yeses" and "noes" is demonstrably different from every row of the infinite table, for it differs from the first row in the first term, from the second row in the second term, and so on. When we read it as set of natural numbers, the set it represents is for the same reason demonstrably different from every set yet listed on the table. But this contradicts our assumption that we had exhaustively listed and paired off all the sets of natural numbers. Therefore our assumption is false, and the natural numbers cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the sets of natural numbers. We're almost done. If the naturals and the sets of naturals cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence, then one has a larger cardinality than the other. The power set of the naturals must have the greater cardinality, for one of its proper subsets, {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}...}, can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the naturals, 0, 1, 2, 3.... Therefore there are more sets of natural numbers than natural numbers. This technique of moving down the diagonal of a table, changing every row in some way, and thereby constructing a new item that differs from every row in some definite respect, is called diagonalization. It is one of Cantor's most ingenious methods for gaining leverage on infinite sets. We'll use diagonalization often. To establish Theorem 3, we used a negative proof. In a negative proof we assume the negation of the desired conclusion and show that that assumption leads to a contradiction; then we conclude that assumptions is false, which is the same thing as to conclude that the desired conclusion is true. It is a special case of the rule of inference, called modus tollens, by which we infer that any statement that implies a falsehood is false. Since it is so hard to grapple with infinite sets directly, negative proofs are common in this branch of mathematics. However, the most important skeptics of Cantor's results, called intuitionists, refuse to use negative proofs in dealing with infinite sets although they are willing to use negative proofs in other areas of mathematics. The issue between Cantor and the intuitionists is whether this refusal is arbitrary, or whether we should distrust negative proofs in those domains where there is no possibility of verifying our results through intuition. Theorem 4. The cardinality of the power set of an arbitrary set has a greater cardinality than the original arbitrary set, or |*A| > |A|. This is called simply Cantor's Theorem. It generalizes the previous theorem, in which we proved that the power set of a particular set, N, had a greater cardinality than the original. The present theorem is trivial for finite sets, but is fundamental for infinite sets. Proof. Let A be an arbitrary set of any cardinality, finite or infinite. Again we supply a negative proof, and assume that the members of A can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the subsets of A. Take any one of the supposed ways of pairing off the members of A with the subsets of A. Let us say that if a member of A is paired with a subset of A of which it happens to be a member, then it is happy; otherwise it is sad. Let S be the set of sad members of A. Clearly S is one of the subsets of A. Therefore S is paired off with one of the members of A, say, x. Is x happy or sad? If x is happy, then x is a member of the set to which it is paired, which is S, but that would make it sad. If x is sad, then x is not a member of the set to which it is paired, which is S, but that would make it happy. So if x is happy, then it is sad, and if it is sad, then it is happy. Our assumption implies a contradiction and is therefore false. So the members of A cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the subsets of A. But if A and *A cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence, then they cannot have the same cardinality. If so, then the larger one must be *A, for A can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset *A. For example, if the members of A are A1, A2, A3..., then they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with this subset of *A: {{A1}, {A2}, {A3}...}. Many profound consequences follow directly from Cantor's theorem. But we make the most important of them explicit in the next theorem.

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

Theorem 5. If S is a set of any infinite cardinality, then its power set has a greater infinite cardinality, or |*S| > |S|. This follows directly from Cantor's Theorem (Theorem 4). Cantor's theorem applies equally to finite and infinite sets; this corollary focuses on the important consequence for infinite sets. If we follow the notation for finite sets, and say that a set of cardinality a has a power a a set of cardinality 2 , then this theorem asserts that 2 > a, for each transfinite cardinal a. This theorem asserts that for any infinite cardinality, there is a larger infinite cardinality, namely, the cardinality of its power set. Hence, there is an infinite series of infinite cardinal numbers. We will meet some of the infinite cardinals larger than N shortly. This theorem also implies that, for every set, there is a greater set. It follows that there is no set of all sets, or no set of everything. It follows from Theorem 5 that "infinity" is not synonymous with "totality", a clarification which alone dispells many of the ancient conundrums and paradoxes surrounding the infinite. Speaking of the infinite series of infinite numbers which Cantor proved to exist, David Hilbert said (in 1910) that, "No one shall drive us from the paradise which Cantor created for us," and (in 1926), "This appears to me to be the most admirable flower of the mathematical intellect and one of the highest achievements of purely rational human activity." Now that we have proved there is an infinite series of infinite cardinals, it is well to prove that truly 0 designates the smallest of them. Theorem 6. No infinite set has a smaller cardinality than a denumerable set (or, none is smaller than the set of natural numbers). Proof. Let S be a set of any infinite cardinality. Clearly we may take away one of its members, call it S1, without emptying S. We may take another, S2, and another, S3, and so on, each time without emptying S. In this way we may carve out a denumerable proper subset from S, namely, {S1, S2, S3...}. But S had any infinite cardinality. Hence all infinite sets have at least one denumerable proper subset. Hence the cardinality of a denumerable set is not greater than any transfinite cardinality; or, it is the smallest transfinite cardinality. We know from the proof of Theorem 6 that every infinite set has an infinite proper subset which consists of the original set minus denumerably many members. This fact has a beautiful implication. If the "largeness" of an infinite set is measured by its cardinality, then the smallest infinite set is a denumerable set or one with a cardinality of 0. But if the largeness of an infinite set is measured by the largeness of its proper subsets, then there is no smallest infinite set: they nest downward ad infinitum without ever losing infinite cardinality.
0

designates the cardinality of the natural numbers by definition, which is demonstrably the smallest
1

infinite cardinality (Theorem 6). This justifies the zero subscript.

is by definition the next greater

infinite cardinality after 0, just as 2 is by definition the next greater cardinal after 1, and so on. As we will see in the section on the continuum hypothesis below, even though there is an infinite series of infinite cardinals (Theorem 5), it is impossible to say, in standard set theory, which one of them is 1, which one is
2,

and so on.
0

Theorem 7. A denumerable set plus a new member is still denumerable, or

+1=

0.

Proof. If we add element A to the set of natural numbers, giving us {A, 0, 1, 2, 3...}, then the resulting set can still be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. A would be paired with 0, 0 with 1, 1 with 2, and so on. As a corollary it follows that we may add a second member, and a third, and so on.

+2=

0,

+3=

0,

0 + n =

0 for every positive integer n.

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

In fact we may add denumerably many new members, A, B, C... to the original denumerable set without increasing its cardinality. The enlarged set, {A, B, C..., 0, 1, 2...}, can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers if we interlace its members thus: A, 0, B, 1, C, 2.... (See Theorem 1.) Therefore, 0 + 0 = 0. Theorem 8. A denumerable set may have denumerably many members removed (in certain ways) without reducing the cardinality of the original set. Proof. We need only regard the given denumerable set as two denumerable sets interlaced, then 'unlace' them, then discard one of them. If {A1, A2, A3...} is the original denumerable set, then we can separate out the set of even-numbered members, {A2, A4, A6...}, from the set of odd-numbered members, {A1, A3, A5...}, each of which is denumerable. If we discard one of the resulting sets, the other one has the same cardinality as the original. Note that this theorem only applies to the removal of certain denumerable subsets from a given denumerable set. For if the denumerably many members we subtracted happened to comprise the entire membership of the original denumerable set, then clearly the result would not be a denumerable set. So we cannot conclude in general that
0

0.

Theorem 9. If we remove denumerably many members from an uncountably large set, the result will have the same cardinality as the original. Proof. Let U be any uncountably large set. We know from Theorem 6 that U has at least one denumerable proper subset, say D. And we know from Theorem 8 that we can remove denumerably many members from D, in certain ways, without reducing the cardinality of D. If we do so, then we thereby remove denumerably many members from U without reducing the cardinality of U. Theorem 10. Every infinite set can be be put into one-to-one correspondence with at least one of its proper subsets. Proof. Let S be a set of any infinite cardinality. If S is countable, then Theorem 8 tells us that we may produce a proper subset of S without reducing S's cardinality. But if S and that proper subset have the same cardinality, then they can be put into one-to-one correspondence. If S is uncountable, then we have the same result using Theorem 9 instead of Theorem 8. Together with the trivial truth that no finite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with any of its proper subsets, this theorem establishes the important result that all and only infinite sets possess the property that they can be put into one-toone correspondence with at least one of their proper subsets. It follows that this property is a necessary and sufficient condition for being an infinite set. It may therefore be taken as the defining condition of infinite magnitude, and its absence as the defining condition of finitude. Definition. Let us say that a text is a finitely long string of symbols, whose symbols are chosen from a finite set (or alphabet). For our purposes here we needn't even say that the string conforms to the rules of some grammar. When interpreted, the text may be a name, a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, a book, or a library. Theorem 11. There are only countably many texts. Proof. By definition there are only finitely many symbols in the "alphabet" from which we may compose texts. List them exhaustively in any order. To the first symbol, assign the numeral "10". To the second, assign the numeral "100". To the third, assign "1000" and so on. In general, to the nth symbol in the alphabet we assign the numeral in which "1" is followed by n zeroes. Now in each text, replace the symbols with their corresponding numerals. Concatenate the numerals so that, for example, "10 100 1000 10" becomes "10100100010". We now have a method for converting every distinct text

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

into a distinct natural number. But there are only

natural numbers. Therefore there

are at most 0 texts. This theorem has deep consequences. We will soon prove (Theorem 16) that there are uncountably many real numbers. But by the present theorem, there are only countably many names for anything. Hence, only a countable subset of the real numbers can be named. Or conversely (by Theorem 9), uncountably many real numbers cannot be named. This theorem also means that there are at most countably many theorems in any axiom system (in which theorems are finitely long). But we know from Theorem 3 that there are uncountably many sets of natural numbers. If there is at least one truth of number theory for each set of natural numbers (e.g. that some number n belongs to that set), then there will be uncountably many truths of number theory. Therefore, there are uncountably many more truths of number theory than there are texts. It follows that every axiom system intended to capture number theory is doomed to incompleteness. Theorem 12. The number of points on a finite line segment is the same as the number of points on an infinite ray. Until It is possible to draw a GIF for this theorem, imagine a large letter "Z". Label the point at the upper left, C, that at the upper right, D, that at the lower left A. Imagine that the bottom bar continues infinitely to the right, and that point B is somewhere along it to the right of A.

Proof. Let segment CD be parallel to ray AB. From point C we can draw a line through any point of AD, except D itself, and the line we draw will intersect AB somewhere; in this way we can pair any point on AD with exactly one point on AB. Conversely, from point C we can draw a line through any point of the ray AB, and the line we draw will intersect AD somewhere; in this way, we can pair any point on AB with exactly one point on AD. But this means the points on AD, minus D itself, and those on AB can be put into one-to-one correspondence. Hence they contain the same number of points. We have yet to say how many points are on AD (minus D itself) or the infinite ray AB, but we know it will be some infinite cardinality. Now since any infinite cardinal plus one equals the original infinite cardinal (Theorem 7), we may add back the point D, which we omitted above, without changing the cardinality of the set of points on the segment. Theorem 13. The number of points on a finite line segment is the same as the number of points on an infinite line. The proof is a simple variation on the proof for Theorem 12. Imagine the mirror image of the figure used in Theorem 12 (a "backward Z"), with a new point, D', to the left of C, and a new point, B', to the left of A. We would then prove that two line segments (AD and AD') together contain the same number of points as the infinite line. But the two line segments together make one longer, though still finite segment. Therefore, the number of points in a finite segment equals the number of points on an infinite line. Definition. The number of real numbers is the same as the number of points on an infinite line; or in the jargon, the numerical continuum has the same cardinality as the linear continuum. Notation. Let c (lower-case "c" for "continuum") designate the cardinality of the continuum or equivalently, the cardinality of the set of real numbers. Hence c = |R| by definition. Theorem 14. c + c = c. Proof. One finite line segment of arbitrary length has c points (Theorems 12 and 13). A second of arbitrary length has c points. Together they make a longer, though still finite line segment, hence one which has c points. Therefore we have as corollaries, 2c = c, 3c = c, and nc = c for every positive integer n.

10

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

Theorem 15.

c = c.

Proof. Think of an infinite line as marked off into unit segments, like a ruler. Clearly the segments could be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Hence there are denumerably many, or 0, such segments. But from Theorem 13 we know that each segment has c points. But the whole line also has c points (by definition of c). Hence the whole line has as many points, c, as the number of segments, 0, times the number of points per segment, c. Theorem 16. The set of real numbers is uncountable, or

|R| > 0. Equivalently, this theorem asserts that c > 0.

Proof. Again we use a negative proof. Assume that the real numbers can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Take the set of real numbers between 0 and 1. Express terminating decimal fractions as non-terminating decimal fractions; for example, 0.5 becomes 0.4999.... Now under our assumption pair off the natural numbers with the reals between 0 and 1, thus:

0 1 2 ...

0.dddd... 0.dddd... 0.dddd... ...

where d is some digit. Now starting with the upper left d, move diagonally down and to the right, following the yellow highlights. Change each d we encounter to some other digit, for example, incrementing it by one, and changing 9 to 0. In this way we construct a new decimal fraction that is demonstrably nowhere on our list, for it differs from the first one in the first decimal place, from the second in the second place, and so on. But this contradicts our assumption that we have exhaustively listed all the real numbers between 0 and 1. Therefore the assumption is false and the reals cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the naturals. But the reals are at least as numerous as the naturals and cannot have the smaller cardinality. Therefore, the cardinality of the set of real numbers is greater than the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. Now we have only to prove that the number of reals between 0 and 1 is the same as the number of all the reals. But this follows directly from Theorem 13. Theorem 17. The power set of the set of natural numbers has the same cardinality as the set of real numbers, or

|*N| = |R| = c.
Proof. We know from the proof of Theorem 3 above that every set of natural numbers can be represented as a denumerable string of "yeses" and "noes". These denumerable strings, in turn, can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the denumerable strings of "1's" and "0's". These strings, in turn, can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers between 0 and 1 if we put a decimal point at the left end each denumerable string of 1's and 0's, and regard the result as a fraction in base two. (We can purge this set of numeral strings of repetitions without reducing the cardinality of the set; if you don't believe me, see the post-script below.) Finally, these real numbers between 0 and 1 can be put into one-to-one correspondence with all the reals, as we saw in Theorem 13. Post-script. To convert a string of 1's and 0's into a binary fraction, just tack a decimal point (or a zero and then a decimal point) onto the left end. For example, 111000... becomes 0.111000..., which equals 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 0/16 + 0/32.... Some of these fractions will equal others, for example, 0.1000... = 0.0111.... (For clarity, remember that in base 10, 0.5000... = 0.4999..., as we saw in Theorem 16.) There are at most countably

11

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

many such repetitions. We know this because if we take all the fractions that consist of "000..." at some point in their expansions, and cut off the trailing zeroes, we will produce distinct, finite strings of 1's and 0's. But there are at most countably many such finite strings, according to Theorem 11. Now we know from Theorem 16 that there are uncountably many real numbers between 0 and 1. Hence to delete the countably many repetitions would leave us with the same uncountable cardinality we started with, according to Theorem 9. Remembering that

|N| =

(by definition), we may use the notation introduced in

Theorem 5 to restate this theorem thus: c = 2 0 (2 to the power of 0, in case your browser choked on this expression). Theorem 18. The set of points in a square has the same cardinality as the set of points on one of its edges (namely, c). Proof. We know from Theorems 12 and 13 that the number of points in a finite line segment is c. Now we need only show that the number of points inside a square is also c. First, think of left and bottom edges of the square as collinear with the x and y axes of a Cartesian coordinate system. Every distinct point inside the square, therefore, has a distinct pair of real numbers to identify it; one is its position on the x axis, the other its position on the y axis. Now interlace these two numbers as we did in Theorems 1 and 7. For example, if the x axis position is 0.125000... and the y axis position is 0.333..., then interlace these two decimal fractions digit by digit to make 0.1323530303030.... We now have a single real number, rather than a pair of real numbers, to correspond to each point inside the square. Each of these new, interlaced numbers is a real number between 0 and 1. We know from Theorem 16 that there are at most c of these. But since they correspond to the points inside a square we also know that there are at least c of them. Therefore, there are exactly c of them. Intensively for the three years from 1871 to 1874 Cantor labored to prove this theorem false. Then he surprised himself by proving it true. "I see it, but I don't believe it," he wrote to Dedekind. Theorem 19. c c = c. This theorem follows directly from Theorem 18. As corollaries of this theorem, we have c c c = c, and c c c ... c = c, or in short, cn = c when n is any positive integer. Theorem 20. The set of all points in a cube has the same cardinality as the set of all points in one of its edges, namely, c. The proof is a simple variation of that for Theorem 18. In fact, it is equivalent to one of the corollaries of Theorem 19. Each point inside the cube will have three coordinates, not two. Hence we interlace three decimal fractions, not two. The rest of the proof is the same as for Theorem 18. Theorem 21. The set of all points in an infinite plane has the same cardinality as the set of all points in a finite line segment, namely, c. Proof. Think of the plane as marked off into an infinite number of square cells, like graph paper. First we show that there will be denumerably many, or 0, such square cells. Pick one cell arbitrarily, and number it 0. Go to the cell above it and number that cell 1. Go one cell to the right and number it 2. Continue in this way to circle the "0" cell. The result will be a spiral that would eventually cover the plane. Yet each cell contains a natural number. Hence the cells and the natural numbers can be put into one-to-one correspondence. Second we note that each cell contains c points, under Theorem 18. Therefore, the number of points in the infinite plane is the number of cells, 0, times the number of points in a cell, c (by Theorem 18), which we know is equal to c (by Theorem 15). Theorem 22. 0 0 = 0.

12

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

The proof of this theorem was already encapsulated in the proof of Theorem 21 when we showed that there were denumerably many, or 0, cells in the infinite graph paper of the Euclidean plane. But another way to ascertain the number of such cells is to take the product of the 'length' of the plane (in cells) and the 'width' of the plane (in cells). But the plane is 0 cells 'high', and 0 cells 'wide'. Hence the number of cells is 0 0. However, we already know the number of cells (from Theorem 21) to equal 0. Theorem 23. The set of all points in infinite, 3-dimensional, Euclidean space has the same cardinality as the set of all points in a finite line segment, namely, c. The proof is a variation on that of Theorem 21. We divide the space into cubes, rather than the plane into squares. Our spiraling path which puts the natural numbers into oneto-one correspondence with the cubes will be more complex, but perhaps you can visualize it. The rest of the proof is the same, except that we use Theorem 20 rather than Theorem 18. Theorem 24. The set of all points in 0-dimensional space has the same cardinality as the set of all points in a finite line segment, namely, c). 3 Proof. If the set of all points in 3-dimensional space is c , then the set of all points in 0-dimensional space is c 0. But under Theorem 17, the latter number equals (2 0) 0, which in turn equals 2 0 0 , which (by Theorem 22) equals 2 0, which (by Theorem 17) equals c. Definition. The continuum hypothesis (CH) asserts that there is no cardinal number a such that 0 < a
( )

<

c.
Since by Theorem 17, c = |*N| = |R|, we could use any of the latter two expressions in place of c in stating CH. From CH it follows that the next largest transfinite cardinal after 0 is c. Hence it also follows that c = allows us to say that
1.

Since we already know (from Theorem 17) that 2 0

= c, CH

1.

The commonly heard assertion that c = 1 assumes CH. The widespread acceptance of the assertion by mathematicians therefore attests to the general acceptance of CH in the profession. (Without CH we have essentially no idea which Aleph corresponds to c, and we would know the cardinality of the naturals, integers, and rationals, but not the cardinality of the reals.) Cantor formulated CH, and spent the last years of his career unsuccessfully trying to prove it. His failure obsessed him and caused recurring bouts of serious depression. To prove or disprove CH was the first problem on David Hilbert's famous 1900 list of important unsolved problems in mathematics. Similarly, attempts to prove or disprove CH, or to prove it undecidable, consumed most of Kurt Gdel's 36 years at the Institute for Advanced Study. But he did produce an important partial proof. In 1938, Gdel showed that CH cannot be disproved from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory, the closest thing we have to "standard" set theory. This meant that the negation of CH (notation: ~CH) could not be derived from the ZF axioms. And this in turn entailed that CH could be assumed and used in standard set theory without introducing any inconsistencies that were not already there. Gdel in effect proved that CH was as harmless as the less exotic propositions that already comprised set theory. That is the main reason why most mathematicians accept CH today. In 1963 Paul Cohen showed that CH cannot be proved from the ZF axioms. Together, Gdel and Cohen's results show that CH is independent of the ZF axioms: neither it nor its negation can be derived from them. Among other things, this means that CH is undecidable in ZF. After Euclid's parallel postulate, CH was the first major conjecture to be proved undecidable by standard mathematics. Its independence also means that ~CH

13

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

is just as consistent with standard set theory as CH itself. This has allowed set theorists to develop set theories with and without it, just as geometers can develop geometries with or without Euclid's parallel postulate. Set theory with ~CH rather than CH is usually called Non-Cantorian set theory. Definition. The generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH) asserts that 2 a = a+1 for every positive integer a. When a=0, GCH yields the ordinary CH. GCH implies that, starting with
0,

we can march through the transfinite cardinals with

the power set operation, and will not skip any. It follows that for every infinite set S, if

= n, then |*S| = |***N|, .... 1

Example finishes

|S| n+1, or that the only transfinite cardinals are |N|, |*N|, |**N|,

At this point you might feel dizzy and probably not understanding why this example is here. I challenge the reader now to think, how often we have exposed the users to a proportional similar request and did not understand why they could not complete the task or the task took very long time before they ask how to complete the template. The learning point here: it is not just a matter of understanding - we can understand all the words as in our example; however some ideas are difficult to be pictured in our minds like Aleph0 is smaller that Aleph1 -it is also a matter of ensuring that the meaning of things for both parties has a common or close conception. So try next time to assess in your communication message the abstraction level required, ensure if the meaning of the concept expected to be carried out is understood in the way you would like it to be. It is not easy, but an excellent exercise

4. Creativity
Humor, jokes, optimism contribute to find new or imaginative ways to move ahead, solving problems, dealing with people, reporting, etc. Marvin Minsky states that: humor has a practical functionality and probably essential in our approach to learning. In other words his theory implies that humor is related to the way we build our paths in our minds, it is mainly linked to the negative thinking, although people do not realize of this. In order to understand why humor is so often related to prohibition, let us consider that our most productive forms of thinking are precisely those exposed to errors. What is humor? Wikipedia define it as the tendency of particular images, stories or situations to provoke laughter and provide amusement. It is clear that generating or being part these situations, in a constructive and adapted way, incite to a positive communication. Followed by optimism, where investigations show that optimism is directly related to the way one experiences and understands the reasons for negative situations; the feeling of a certain degree of influence and control over circumstances in life, give us an introduction to the next subject: jokes. Freud stated that we build sensors in our mind, like barriers to stop the forbidden or unwished thoughts, and those sensors and inhibitors are turned on constantly in our mind in such a way that some paths are
1

Bibliographic note. Most of the theorems and proofs in this example were discovered by Georg Cantor (18451918) and published in a series of monographs starting in 1870. He published two summary statements of his results in 1895 and 1897, which have been translated into English by Philip E. B. Jourdain as Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers, Dover Publications, 1955. Peter Suber exposition of Cantor's results is based on three other recent authors: Stephen Cole Kleene, Introduction to Metamathematics, North-Holland Pub. Co., 1952; Abraham Fraenkel, Abstract Set Theory, North-Holland Pub. Co., 1953; and Geoffrey Hunter, Metalogic, University of California Press, 1971.

14

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

never visited and therefore thoughts that never will come to our minds, as we stop these thoughts before ever we can come to the idea. On the other hand the jokes specifically visit the forbidden paths, those that our mind will hinder pass by. Actually the strength of a joke relies on the description that fits simultaneously in two different frames, where the first meaning has to be transparent and innocent, while the second one is disguised and censurable. In a way these is one of the main goals when we test a system, visiting the paths that are forbidden because they have not been in the mind of the developer, user or tester, but will be for sure in the mind of someone using the system once the product has been shipped. This way of state of mind give us a smooth link to creativity: the mental process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts or new associations of the creative mind between existing ideas or 2 concepts . And creativity is part of the testers challenges, applying an exploratory test approach without releasing those inhibitors cannot be described in advance as a successful test, although it may be or changing the test plan when the shipping date has not been moved and the development delivers much later than promised. Therefore practising these amusing activities accurately will contribute to develop our performance. Another aspect to the daily use of humour is the error recognition. Normally when the test manager needs to show to another person in the team that something has been done wrongly, he/she would like to avoid any misinterpretation, rejection or disapproval, besides also avoiding the anger or deception of the receiver. Therefore the management, who cares for the team needs to adopt a polite and conciliatory approach to keep the good feelings, this is why humour has developed this funny and seducing forms to do the job, which is in essence unpleasant. We do not want the receiver of the message to kill the messenger, especially if we are the messenger.

5. Self efficacy
Are your testers stressed? Or do they feel they cannot cope with all the demands? Is there any difference in this? People's beliefs in their coping capabilities affect how much stress and depression they experience in threatening or difficult situations, as well as their level of motivation. Perceived self-efficacy to exercise control over stressors plays a central role in anxiety arousal. People who believe they can exercise control over threats do not conjure up disturbing thought patterns. Albert Bandura has defined the concept of self-efficacy as peoples belief about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Selfefficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave. Such beliefs produce these diverse effects through four major processes. They include cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes. The belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals enhances human accomplishment and personal well-being in many ways, therefore understanding of some soft skill will contribute to reduce the stress level. Different research show that the degree of self-efficacy has significance in our skill to handle stress Observe that Self-efficacy does not refer to the actual control and influence, we have in a specific circumstance in our lives, but the skill of believing that we exercise control over it in the way we think and handle the situation. Low self efficacy, for those who believe they cannot manage threats, they experience high anxiety arousal. They dwell on their coping deficiencies. They view many aspects of their environment as fraught
2

Wikipedia

15

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

with danger. They magnify the severity of possible threats and worry about things that rarely happen. Through such inefficacious thinking they distress themselves and impair their level of functioning. Perceived coping self-efficacy regulates avoidance behaviour as well as anxiety arousal. The stronger the sense of self-efficacy the bolder people are in taking on taxing and threatening activities. Albert Bandura, defines in his study four sources of self-efficacy: easy success, experiences provided by social models, social persuasion and peoples somatic and emotional states in judging their capabilities. And develops the four major psychological processes through which self beliefs of efficacy affect human functioning: cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes, The need to have exaggerated control over everything will on the other hand increase the risk of stress and burnout, and it is one of the characteristics of the type A-behaviour or The hurry-up syndrome. Another important aspect to manage stress is to leave aside some tasks, especially those, which we have insufficient influence to solve

Phys ical and Psyc holo gical care

Helpless Hopeless Boredom Depression

Degree of control

Type A-behaviour Burn-out Over control

Optimism is in this case is closely associated with the belief of feeling control of situations related with stress. It is also valid in this case that an overdose may kill.

6. One or two Brains?

Now that we have been through abstraction, creativity and stress mitigation we have warmed up to deal with a greener field in the science area: Will the sex of the person have any influence in solving a task in the future? Or in other words are the male and the female brains equal? We know that both sexes think differently, but until now this fact has been attributed to the sexual hormones or to social pressure that makes that both women and men behave differently. In general it was a belief that the basic architecture of the brain was the same for both sexes. Nevertheless this though is severely questioned as time goes by. Science is beginning to demonstrate that the masculine and the feminine brains are formed from different genetic programs, which provokes a lot of anatomic differences. The brain circuits have also differences, as well as the chemical substances transmitting the messages, all this bounds to conclude that there is not one single human brain, but two.

16

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

And this is giving a headache to the neuroscientific people, most of the available knowledge about the studies of the brain has been carried out on male animals and men volunteers, therefore the results have been generalized for everybody. Knowing the difference between the male and female brains could help explain some mysteries of science today: why men and women tend to suffer different mental illness? Or why some drugs give better results in one sex and almost an opposite effect on the other sex? With the time it becomes obvious that the hypothalamus is just the beginning of the story, a study carried out in 2001 led by Jill Goldstein, from Harvard University, measured and compared 45 brain regions in women and men with no known impairments. The researchers found out that the frontal lobe, which homes the decision taking and problem solving functions, were proportionally bigger in women than in men. The same happened with the limbic corteza, where emotions are regulated. There many studies performed in the area: Larry Cahill, from University of California in Irvine, Anne Murphy, University of Georgia in Athens, Margaret Mc Carthy, University in Baltimore, etc, which present evidences of these differences. One, which draw my attention, is the one from Anne Murphy, where apparently women posses a circuit to control the pain dissimilar to men, in which case this could explain the reaction to opiates from the different sexes. Women get much better pain relief with nabluphine (a pain killer based on opium) than with morphine, whilst men get better results with morphine than with nabluphine, which in fact it increases the intensity of the pain. We have not reached the test area yet and there is still a winding road uphill to climb, however this gives an idea that once this evidences get settled and recognized, they will transferred and used in the industry.

7. The Upcoming Working Environment

The contemporary working activities imply such king of working life where you every day meet new unexpected people, visit new places, find new interesting things which never wanted to find and even never thought about. This is the way of working in new knowledge society, where working environment is multicultural, multidisciplinary and full of Serendipity. The translation of this word from Russian is something like intuitive astuteness, but the best definition to me is from Wikipedia: Serendipity is the art of finding what we are not looking for by looking for what we are not finding (Wikipedia 2004). In other words it is an accidental finding of something unexpected and useful while searching for something else entirely. For example, the discovery of the antibacterial properties of penicillin by Alexander Fleming was serendipitous, because he was merely cleaning his laboratory when he discovered that the Penicillium mould had contaminated one of his old experiments. 7.1. Trust Identity and Efficacy I would like to go through the analysis of the article entitled "Building the Emotional Intelligence of groups," Vanessa Urch Druskat and Steven B. Wolff (Harvard Business Review, March 2001), where they identify three conditions essential to a groups effectiveness: Trust among members A sense of group identity A sense of group efficacy To be most effective, the team needs to create emotionally intelligent norms. Trust among members is the pillar that supports behaviours and foster cooperation and collaboration within the team. Group identity is described as a feeling among members that they belong to a unique and worthwhile group. A sense of group efficacy is the belief that the team can perform well and that group members are more effective working together than apart.

17

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

Team Emotional Intelligence is about bringing Emotions deliberately to the surface and understanding how they affect the Teams work is not a question of catching emotions as they bubble up and then suppressing them. It involves courageously bringing feelings out into the open and dialoguing about how they affect the teams work. If emotions are avoided, there is a false or superficial tone, which will be reflected negatively at any moment or in the work delivered, conscious or unconsciously depending on the individuals. Groups cannot work together without having personalities that butt up against each other. Admitting to this is the first step in clarifying and finding common ground upon which to move forward. The group must feel safe to be able to explore, embrace and ultimately to rely on emotions in work, where the team leaders will get even more challenged in this area in the coming days. Team leaders awareness, understanding and assertiveness towards the members of the group to balance accordance and productivity will gain a main role. 7.2 A Multicultural and multidisciplinary environment Short development time has been the route for software project in the last many years, Rapid, Extreme, Agile, another trend is the SOA approach, this development haste is bound to continue in the future and diversity is one of the pillars to these approaches, the professional and specialist to carry out the specific tasks. These give us a multicultural and multidisciplinary group of people working with a common goal. How difficult or easy is to work in an environment of diversity and many cultural influences? In the presence of ethnic diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined, and its not just that we dont trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we dont trust people who do look like us. Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam. I would also extend this statement to the fact of different education level, the worker turns in an alert or defensive state when a manifested educational difference is noticed. Therefore it is clear that one of the challenges in the coming years is to change this attitude. We need to learn, to understand, to teach to our emotions to trust in a sincere and opened way, if our team would like to perform in a competitive standard. 7.3 SOA picturing the future To start with some few bullets about SOA. Service Oriented Architecture can be summarised in some very few words as: A collection of services that communicate in a structured manner An approach to software design in which application functionality is achieved from a collaboration of shared services A main communication system with either simple data passing or two or more services coordinated to form a composite application A system, where the functionality is independent of the underlying technology Service Oriented Architecture is not a new concept, but lack of agreed and open standards made it infeasible in the past. Effective testing of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) obliges an amalgam of eclectic profiles and a solid test process. The need of competences in the test team stretches from in-depth technical skills and tools expertise to profound understanding of the corporate processes and business risk assessment including many of the shaded nuances in-between this scale. In the last EuroSTAR: defining the profession we have experienced many different point of views on the subject, some were more intrepid than the classic perception to give place for some new thoughts; however the general acknowledgement converged on the upcoming in one concept test specialist role, where the general tester whilst time evolves will be losing terrain and having less influence. But it is necessary also to admit that these profiles without awareness on soft skills would have few chances to success. Then we can certainly conclude that good communication, high level of abstraction, innovative and creative procedures and ability to control stress situations will give the individuals moral strength to achieve reliable results within the deadline. Regarding the teams behaviour we need to consider the multicultural and multidisciplinary environment imposed by this architecture, which must count on good team playing, trust, efficacy and team identity if we want to succeed.

18

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

SOA different services, the data communication and the independency of technology frame a working environment that in my perspective depicts the future working conditions. The complex test set up and the project exposure to several pitfalls are further indicators of dependency on high-quality team work and inter-team communication, then: The special skills are a must, but Most of the basic test principles, like early testing, are as applicable as today Balance between new technology and existing theory work together Personal and inter-personal soft skills will be reflected in the final results and not only in the team Forecast of results and future use of services become part of the testers work.

This are the reasons, why I believe that SOA is an excellent example of the future work, it exposes the different aspect testers need to work on.

8. Conclusion
Technology and IT development impose the testers own development, mastering specific skills and techniques to cope with the daily work; however this evolution does not seem to make demands only in the industrial field. The working environments also evolve and we need to adapt to this working approach. Today part of our jobs happens in the so called virtual environment and the rest in the traditional 3 physical environment this adjustment to different ways of working implies changes not only in the physical aspect but also in our minds. Curious enough the disadvantages mentioned for the virtual working environment in Evgenia Chernenkos paper Augmented Reality Concept in the Design of Innovative Working Environment, are all of them related to emotional competences, whilst the advantages of the physical working environment are also all but one directly linked to the emotional competences. The conclusion is then that the testers work will necessarily be composed of both technical and soft skills if the testers would like to succeed. We need to develop in the emotional area to foster understanding, motivation, collaboration, to feel part of a group, etc. However it is our choices that will define the future and it is us breaching the path for the coming years

9. References
Bobby Zachariae, Stress-kompetence, Rosinante, Denmark 2005 Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, MIT 1989 Albert Bandura, Self Efficacy, Standford University Hannah Hoag, Brains apart: the real difference between the sexes, New Scientist, 16 London
3 th

July 2008,

At present there exist two kinds of working environments, and accordingly two ways of working process realizations that are successfully used: (1) classical face-to-face way that suppose peoples communication in one physical location and (2) modern virtual way using ICT that allows remote working. The difference between these two ways of working is obvious. Classical way of work requires physical presence of people at one place. All communications between them performed in face-to-face manner. In virtual way of working the main feature is ICT use, i.e. the working process is performed distantly by means of some kind of virtual environment.

19

Fabin Scarano

PA Consulting Group, Denmark

Peter Suber, A Crash Course in the Mathematics of infinite Sets, Philosophy Department Earlham College Torry Harris, SOA Testing Business Solutions Inc, US, 2007 Hans Henrik Rasmussen, I fremtiden vil man ikke lngere kunne holde det ud (In the future we will not th be able to support it), Information newspaper, 29 March 2008.
Evgenia Chernenkos paper Augmented Reality Concept in the Design of Innovative Working Environment, University of Joensuu, 2005

Vanessa Urch Druskat and Steven B. Wolff, Building the emotional Intelligence of Groups, Harvard Business Review, March 2001

20