![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
has come under attack for 2 reasons so far:
Mfwitten ( talk) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You didn't actually answer my question: is there any good reason to prefer the example as it stands, despite the repeated need to defend yourself? Please, just tell me: why do you insist that we should not change the example to something other than a WP account user name? (Be sure also to look at my questions regarding WP:OR at the bottom of this talk page, please.) Phiwum ( talk) 16:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has been around since 2001. At this point it apparently has escaped notice.
For every reader of an encyclopedia, there is at least some material that is beyond that reader's immediate understanding; this simply means that the reader does not yet have a mature enough foundation for the subject.
Should we scrap or otherwise mangle the article on the Jacobian matrix just because you, as a particular reader, have trouble understanding it? Should we disregard Principia Mathematica because you, as a particular reader, can't fathom why it would take around 400 pages of foundational logic to prove ?
Now, I grant that the lack of sectioning is cosmetically alarming at first blush, but the nature of the subject and the presentation of these concepts seem to require a rather tight coupling of the paragraphs throughout; it may just be the case that breaking the text into sections would only lead to contrived organization and further confusion. Of course, it's a task worth considering.
Mfwitten ( talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Thank you for the sectioning. I do not see that adding sections degraded the article in the least and made it easier to read, study, refer to (as with links), and as a plus, which may or may not be important to some, follows policies and guidelines. Using one of your words I feel sections did offer "enhancements".
At times and in sundry places I have made light of my ignorance. For this I do not apologize as I have acquired some knowledge that rivals that of great minds. Since "ignorance", which can be defined by genus and differentia, is only a lack of knowledge, I imagine all are ignorant to some point. To present that one lacks the knowledge of a subject, we might suppose as ignorance, we could also presume this person to be unlearned. That might be true to some, but in reality may only be on a particular point or subject, thus one may still be learned and lack certain knowledge. It is highly probable that no one person (specifically speaking of the species Homo sapiens) knows everything. To determine if a subject (a lucky guess notwithstanding) does not have a "mature enough foundation" for understanding or is simply having trouble understanding, possibly because the way something is presented, is certainly debatable. In light of that, as with entertaining the thought of sections, it might be a good idea to consider the genusâdifferentia of the evidence presented. I assume that since words can be subjected to this method then certainly sentences and even paragraphs can.
As for understanding, or not understanding, the fault could lie on the person but could just as easily lie in the presentation of what is presented that is attempting to be understood. Since there is only one source, and nothing pertinent to the rest of the article, it is somewhat difficult to follow non-existent references to check facts. But this is only a fundamental Wikipedia criteria that to some is obviously not important. I can show another side of my foundational maturity regarding references should the need arise.
A method of defining terms would be the method used to determine the definition. In the context of the subject would this then not be a genusâdifferencia method? I found multiple references to this name and only one that corresponds with the current title.
I have read that there are limits of defining certain things by genus and difference. If this is so then a subsection, that would certainly enhance the article by presenting a neutral point of view, would be warranted.
Concerning the above mentioned article "Jacobian matrix"; there are issues there also. Maybe I am just better at mathematics than philosophy but that article does have better presentation and also has flaws. Neither article has a history section and some etymology would be beneficial. "Jacobian matrix" and Hessian matrix mention partial derivatives but "Jacobian matrix" states, "... is the matrix of all first-order partial derivatives of a vector- or scalar-valued function...", while "Hessian matrix" states, "...is the square matrix of second-order partial derivatives. Listed in the section "Jacobian matrix" of "Jacobian matrix and determinant":
and:
Perhaps we could consider my "ignorance" or lack of "mature enough foundation" as to the reasons I feel there is confusion in discussing "second derivative" on one hand and "second-order" on the other as well as "first derivatives" as opposed to "first-order". I don't think it is just me, and the fact it may be above my "immediate understanding", that this is confusing. The Jacobian determinant has been confusingly referred to as "the Jacobian" so would this not be good information to be included an article?
"Partial derivative" explains, "The difference between the total and partial derivative is the elimination of indirect dependencies between variables in partial derivatives.", and this is hidden in the section Examples but, in my humble opinion, should be in the lead and in a noted section of that article.
I feel that my lack of any foundational understanding concerning a subject may be a reason not to try to get into a philosophical discussion on said subject but this does not mean that I can not see errors, things presented as to be confusing, or certain important things omitted.
Prima facie the article " Principia Mathematica" appears well laid out although there would probably be a great multitude of readers that do not need 400 pages to explain what was accepted before grade school. I would imagine there could be found some that could present some form of argument though.
Considering these discussions I have not forgotten that a user name is (to me) improperly used in the main space of Wikipedia. This was not addressed in replying comments nor in edits. Rational convincing arguments do not include suppositions, poor examples, personal opinions, non-Wikipedia culture, or hints as to reasoning. It was used and consensus by silence has allowed it to remain. "The world changes, and Wikipedia must change with it.", and I now object, so would you mind choosing a better example? I can pass this by the community to see if a particular example is justification (or not) or choose another avenue of dispute resolution. Perhaps my "immediate understanding" is just a lack of comprehensibility so maybe I should just go this route to see if there are minds more equipped to reach a more logical conclusion. Otr500 ( talk) 10:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Placing a Wikipedia user name in an article main space, a real (current or past) user or even a fictitious user, would be covered by Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning original research, blogs, notability, references, self promotion, indiscriminate collection of information, verifyability, and possibly more. The fact that a real and current user name is the subject, that also happens to be a major contributor, raises issues of conflict of interest. Otr500 ( talk) 04:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The positions that you are representing are, in my opinion, unhelpful to Wikipedia.
Regarding confusion: I stand by my original statements.
Regarding a History section: I don't particularly care about the history, personallyâI don't particularly care that someone thinks that we would be deprived of this concept (or at least this terminology) unless some guy named Boethius wrote about it. Of course, I don't mind if information about such history is introduced, but I think it's important to recognize that there are two approaches to this subject at play (I am concerned primarily with the latter):
Regarding notability: I personally feel that in general, the concept of "notability" is mostly a ridiculous one. The purpose of "notability" is found in the fact that resources are finite; if Wikipedia had infinite resources, nobody would care if I made one new article for each of my bowel movements.
Any debate about notability should really only be about the degree of interconnection with other articles that exist both outside and inside Wikipedia.
In this case, I think I have demonstrated even to you that this subject is notable, but quite frankly, I don't care one bit whether or not you (or anyone else) feels that this subject (or any other subject) can be called notable; what is notable to one person is not notable to another (for instance, Boethius is not notable to me in the slightest, but I imagine you'll definitely want him mentioned somewhere in the articleâif only for the juicy reference).
Regarding references: I personally feel that references are only useful for resolving disputes. I don't think it's wrong to synthesize or even to produce original research on Wikipedia, because to me, the freeâflow of ideas and information is what is importantânot whether some bloke said the same thing in some other medium.
For instance, let's assume that this article does perform a synthesis that cannot be attributed to some nonâWikipedia source. What are you going to do with that synthesis? Remove it? To me, that would be a highly immoral destruction of useful information (as long as that synthesis is not in dispute). Ultimately, there is no, say, "journal" that is more peerâreviewed than Wikipedia.
Now, I recognize that this stance is diametrically opposed to the stance that some users of Wikipedia have. However, it is my opinion that those with the alternative view are unhelpful to Wikipedia; such people destroy value just to play some game with themselves (possibly because they are unable to help in creating real value in the first place).
Regarding the example:
Do you see the richness of this example? Perhaps you don't, but your reasons for removing this particular example are absurd, especially in the face of such richness. Mfwitten ( talk) 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I am listing comments on the project page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. Otr500 ( talk) 08:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, perhaps a compromise will do:
In any case, the title Genusâdifferentia definition seems to be suitable:
However, as another alternative, the article Definition has long had the section:
Though a bit circuitous, it would be a decent article title:
Mfwitten ( talk) 20:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this section WP:OR, or is there a reference to a discussion of this sort? Unless a reference can be given, I suggest it should be removed. It's not a particularly essential bit in any case. Phiwum ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Your thoughts are incomplete. Fortunately, the article, as it was written, can help you understand. In particular, now that you have removed the sections, the article ends with precisely your example:
At this point, though, you are left with 2 definitions for a square. Which definition is correct? Is a square a manifestation of a rectangle or is it a manifestation of a a rhombus? The section titled "Multiplicity" guides the reader's own thoughts toward an understanding in increasing generality:
In particular, that text directs the reader to consider when and how some differentiae may be transformed into genera, and that when this transformation is applied uniformly, one arrives at a structure that involves "is-a" and "has-a" relationships, which was described in the next section that you deleted.
Let me put this into a different light: Much of the text that you just destroyed is merely a recording of deductive logic and intellectual musings, the merit of which any reader is capable of considering on his own without any help from a blessed authority; requiring the citation of some authority imposes an extreme limitation on the freeâflow of this kind of information. Indeed, the article is now obviously less complete.
You are not improving Wikipedia by destroying content like this. Your destructive edit is no doubt an unintended consequence of the "policy" you cite. Mfwitten ( talk) 03:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the text that I wrote makes these two statements:
So, most importantly, you are making a straw man argument; you are fighting against a position that I do not actually take. In particular, the text that I wrote never states that any differentia can be regarded as a hasâa relationship (as you imply it does), but only that it is the differentia of a definition (namely, the nonâgenus portion of the differentia) that may be used for expressing a hasâa relationship, which is discussed by the sections on multiplicity and structure (which you destroyed).
Your example is interesting (as I hope you'll see), but it does not help your case (in fact, it helps mine). For reference, here's the example:
Now, I imagine that the term Piety is being defined, so let's place it in a more canonical form:
There is an implied verb here:
What does "pertaining to" mean? It's actually ambiguous language, but I would say it basically means "a manifestation of":
In terms of a definition by genus and differentia, when:
then [a] Y is a genus of X, and it can simply be written:
So, the example may be simplified further:
Now, look at the form:
As you can see, there is no non-genus portion of the differentia of this definition, so of course you cannot find a hasâa relationship. Your example doesn't express one! It is similar to the example presented in the Multiplicity section (which you deleted):
That bit about "possibly no differentia" is referring to the fact that when there is no nonâgenus portion of the differentia of a definition, then after the transformation, there will be no traditionally discernible differentia.
At this point, I've already exposed your example as being nonsensical with respect to your argument, but let's continue analyzing it. You stated:
That is not correct. Firstly, what does this portion of your example:
mean, anyway? It's a reference to a portion of an existing definition, namely the definition of "justice". That is, "That part of justice" is an abstraction; it is something that has been abstracted away from the definition of "justice" (fortunately, you haven't yet destroyed the part of the article that expounds upon abstraction). So, which portion has been abstracted away? Well, that portion pertaining to service to the gods, of course! So, your example is really a specification for how to abstract away a portion of the definition of "justice" (but not explicitly what that abstraction really is), and the term "piety" is simply the name given to that abstraction, and (as already shown) the genus of "piety" is:
That is, "piety" is "[a] service to the gods", which certainly agrees with my understanding of "piety". Now, what about its relationship to "justice"? Well, "piety" could be employed in the definition of "justice" as one of two things:
We don't know which role it plays, though, because the portion of the definition of "justice" is never specified (and neither is an explicit definition of "piety"). However, my understanding of "justice" suggests that "piety" is in fact employed as a genus of justice: When justice is served, the gods are served; justice is a manifestation of piety; justice is piety. So, as you can see, all of the pieces fit nicely together.
In short, your point of contention does not exist; only your own confusion exists.
In further defense of the importance of the section on multiplicity, I firstly note that I am a reader who would be deeply troubled by the presence of multiple definitions for a single term, and having this kind of guiding text to focus my thinking would save me a lot of strife, personally; the presence of this text is something that you as a reader may shrug off as a triviality, but for me as a reader, it would save a great deal of mental anguish. So, in keeping the text, there's very little (if any) harm for some readers, and there's a great benefit for others.
In further defense of the importance of the section on multiplicity, I secondly note that it directly leads to thinking about the structure of not only a set of definitions, but also the structure of a single definition, and how isâa and hasâa relationships can be mapped to genera and differentiae (and, at least to some large degree, vice versa). It is essential, in my opinion, to making a smooth transition to the subject of structure, a subject which is important for a number of reasons.
A large number of the readers of Wikipedia are no doubt people who are familiar with objectâoriented programming, a subject in which isâa, hasâa, derivation (differentiation, extension, etc.), abstraction, and even multiplicity play fundamental roles in understanding the conceptual world and essentially the physical world; I think that making this connection will ignite an explosion of understanding in their heads, and it will perhaps lead others to these related subjects. For others, the development of the terms "species", "individual", "identity", and their connection to linguistic elements such as a pars pro toto synechdoche will trigger other understandings.
In any case, this makes sense:
However, this almost always does not make sense:
That rule only makes sense when resources are limited, such as when an article has become very lengthy, and it becomes worthwhile to reorganize or streamline it, etc. Put another way: That rule is only valuable because of our current limitations as humans, and I certainly don't think it can be said to apply in thise case.
On the matter of citations, consider this: If a cited book states exactly what has been stated in this article, then you personally may remain just as confused and/or unswayed as you have been; what, then, does this book title do for you in this case that is so magical? Will you immediately be satisfied by what has been written? If so, then your approach to editing Wikipedia is unthinking and at a greater risk of being harmful (in fact, it has just been harmful). Let's say that I am the one who wrote that book; what in this situation has changed then? In this sense, the citation would corroborate not the reliability of what has been written on Wikipedia, but rather just my own determination to get the information on Wikipedia.
Look at all of this careful thought that is at the basis of what has been written. Look at how I've used what was talked about in the article (before you destroyed it) to help you understand your own example in great depth. Why are you so adamant about destroying this useful information when you offer nothing to contribute in its place? Clearly, the article was superior before your edit. Mfwitten ( talk) 21:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion that we are having is part of your argument; your argument for a destructive edit is based (at least partially) on it. Therefore, the discussion belongs here.
Firstly, I address the continuing qualms surrounding the example on which you base your argument. Secondly, I address the accusations of WP:OR.
With regard to abstraction, first take a look at the discussion on abstraction. For reference, here is one of the definitions of a square that is presented:
Now consider this definition:
As with your example of "piety", this is a vague specification for an abstraction; the definition of a rectangle given here is specifying that something is being abstracted away from the definition of a square. As with the treatment of your example:
Because we are actually given the definition of a square (unlike with "justice"), we can surmise which part of a square is actually meant by the abstraction specification, thereby allowing for an explicit definition:
Just as "service to the gods" in your example is a genus of "piety", so it is that "a quadrilateral with certain interior angles" is a genus of "a rectangle".
By substituting the definition of a rectangle into the definition of a square, one gets:
Just as "piety" in your example is (likely) a genus of "justice" (and certainly not the other way around), so it is that "a rectangle" is a genus of "a square" (and certainly not the other way around); a square is a manifestation of a rectangle; a square is a rectangle.
As for WP:OR, I think that WP:SYNTHNOT is instructive:
Have I really expanded human knowledge rather than just thoughtfully present it? Please tell me if I have, and tell me which journal of note would accept my article.
The only thing going for the detractors of what I have written is the lack of citations. To that, I think the very first footnote of WP:OR is instructive:
Citations are not necessary if there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This, combined with the spirit of acceptable synthesis makes what I have written acceptable, and WP:IGNORE makes what I have written essential. Mfwitten ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral point of view â All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
- Verifiability â Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthâmeaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
- No original research â Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.
These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. These three policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles
Your "piety" example has been confusing, because you conflate the notions of intensional and extensional definitions. Basically, the language for your definition of "piety":
is meant to be interpreted in the context of an extensional definition of "justice" rather than an intensional definition by genus and differentia; the term "justice" is very silently assumed to be written something like this:
Here, the term "justice" is being defined by listing all members of the genus "justice", and thus the words "that part of justice" actually mean "a member of the genus justice" (or, as I've been using in other comments, "a manifestation of justice"), which can simply be reduced to "justice" and employed as the genus of a definition of "piety" by genus and differentia:
Perhaps an expanded system of definitions by genus and differentia might look like the following:
Mfwitten ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
You are arguing against a statement that is not there, and thus ALL of your examples are wasted.
The text I wrote for the article states that the differentia of a definition (namely, the nonâgenus portion of the differentia of a definition) is simply a place where a hasâa relationship may be specified.
What I wrote for the article is indeed a weaker statement than that against which you are arguing (and which does not exist in what I wrote), but that does not render it as having no value; in fact, the value comes from simply mentioning hasâa relationships along side isâa relationships. Mfwitten ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
While I've already made my point, I'll entertain the example you provided, which is:
With regard to that example, you stated:
Let's do some abstraction to make the example clearer:
So, the non-genus portion of the differentia of the definition of "a sequence" that you provided does indeed provide a means by which to express a hasâa relationship, namely:
Similarly, the definition you provided expresses a constraint on an existing hasâa relationship:
The constraint is that each node be a SequenceNode. So, the nonâgenus portion of the differentia of the definition of "a sequence" that you provided does express new hasâa relationships:
As an aside, even a genus provides the means by which to express a hasâa relationship; after all, just expressing that a sequence is a tree is enough to express that a sequence has one or more nodes, for instance. Note that what I wrote for the article does not preclude such thinking (however, I would argue that such thinking is not worthy of prominence given that such a hasâa relationship depends on the existence of an isâa relationship). Mfwitten ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey ho.
I was looking through some old revisions of this article, and I saw this one. There are some things I like about it, and I wondered whether others would agree.
First, the introduction explicitly mentions "species", which is an essential term in traditional presentations of genus-difference, but is currently omitted until the "human being" example (where "species" could well mean the biological classification, not the term usually meant in this context).
Second, I really like the tables that break down the examples clearly into genus and difference â and make no special consideration for the cases in which the difference involves membership in a genus. Those look very clearly presented.
I don't mean to kick Mfwitten while he's down, and I know that he's the reason we've lost the old intro and the table presentation of definitions, but it seems to me that these losses were a mistake. Any opinions? Phiwum ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: The SEP refers to Book V (Zeta) of Aristotle's metaphysics, not the Topics. I think that this book may be more relevant for us, since it seems to deal more explicitly with differentia. Phiwum ( talk) 16:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
From my own shelves, I've found the following references.
These are four of the first six books I grabbed off of my shelf. The only two which do not discuss genus-difference are Baronet's Logic and Washburn's The Vocabulary of Critical Thinking (which is not so focused on logic per se). It should be very easy to add references to this article.
We should probably also refer to Aristotle's treatment of such definitions. I don't know where that occurs offhand. Phiwum ( talk) 13:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering if this method of definition includes those which start by (perhaps implicitly) abstracting from an existing definition to create a genus, and then becoming more specific again with different differentia - or if there is a different term for such a process.
As an example of what I mean I offer the definition of "Scotch Chess": It's chess, but after White's first move, each player makes several consecutive moves, namely one more than the number of moves made by the previous player.
The abstraction made is "chess, except that the order in which the order of play remains unspecified", followed by differentiation by specifying an order of play that is different to that of chess. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.181.145 ( talk) 20:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
has come under attack for 2 reasons so far:
Mfwitten ( talk) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You didn't actually answer my question: is there any good reason to prefer the example as it stands, despite the repeated need to defend yourself? Please, just tell me: why do you insist that we should not change the example to something other than a WP account user name? (Be sure also to look at my questions regarding WP:OR at the bottom of this talk page, please.) Phiwum ( talk) 16:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has been around since 2001. At this point it apparently has escaped notice.
For every reader of an encyclopedia, there is at least some material that is beyond that reader's immediate understanding; this simply means that the reader does not yet have a mature enough foundation for the subject.
Should we scrap or otherwise mangle the article on the Jacobian matrix just because you, as a particular reader, have trouble understanding it? Should we disregard Principia Mathematica because you, as a particular reader, can't fathom why it would take around 400 pages of foundational logic to prove ?
Now, I grant that the lack of sectioning is cosmetically alarming at first blush, but the nature of the subject and the presentation of these concepts seem to require a rather tight coupling of the paragraphs throughout; it may just be the case that breaking the text into sections would only lead to contrived organization and further confusion. Of course, it's a task worth considering.
Mfwitten ( talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Thank you for the sectioning. I do not see that adding sections degraded the article in the least and made it easier to read, study, refer to (as with links), and as a plus, which may or may not be important to some, follows policies and guidelines. Using one of your words I feel sections did offer "enhancements".
At times and in sundry places I have made light of my ignorance. For this I do not apologize as I have acquired some knowledge that rivals that of great minds. Since "ignorance", which can be defined by genus and differentia, is only a lack of knowledge, I imagine all are ignorant to some point. To present that one lacks the knowledge of a subject, we might suppose as ignorance, we could also presume this person to be unlearned. That might be true to some, but in reality may only be on a particular point or subject, thus one may still be learned and lack certain knowledge. It is highly probable that no one person (specifically speaking of the species Homo sapiens) knows everything. To determine if a subject (a lucky guess notwithstanding) does not have a "mature enough foundation" for understanding or is simply having trouble understanding, possibly because the way something is presented, is certainly debatable. In light of that, as with entertaining the thought of sections, it might be a good idea to consider the genusâdifferentia of the evidence presented. I assume that since words can be subjected to this method then certainly sentences and even paragraphs can.
As for understanding, or not understanding, the fault could lie on the person but could just as easily lie in the presentation of what is presented that is attempting to be understood. Since there is only one source, and nothing pertinent to the rest of the article, it is somewhat difficult to follow non-existent references to check facts. But this is only a fundamental Wikipedia criteria that to some is obviously not important. I can show another side of my foundational maturity regarding references should the need arise.
A method of defining terms would be the method used to determine the definition. In the context of the subject would this then not be a genusâdifferencia method? I found multiple references to this name and only one that corresponds with the current title.
I have read that there are limits of defining certain things by genus and difference. If this is so then a subsection, that would certainly enhance the article by presenting a neutral point of view, would be warranted.
Concerning the above mentioned article "Jacobian matrix"; there are issues there also. Maybe I am just better at mathematics than philosophy but that article does have better presentation and also has flaws. Neither article has a history section and some etymology would be beneficial. "Jacobian matrix" and Hessian matrix mention partial derivatives but "Jacobian matrix" states, "... is the matrix of all first-order partial derivatives of a vector- or scalar-valued function...", while "Hessian matrix" states, "...is the square matrix of second-order partial derivatives. Listed in the section "Jacobian matrix" of "Jacobian matrix and determinant":
and:
Perhaps we could consider my "ignorance" or lack of "mature enough foundation" as to the reasons I feel there is confusion in discussing "second derivative" on one hand and "second-order" on the other as well as "first derivatives" as opposed to "first-order". I don't think it is just me, and the fact it may be above my "immediate understanding", that this is confusing. The Jacobian determinant has been confusingly referred to as "the Jacobian" so would this not be good information to be included an article?
"Partial derivative" explains, "The difference between the total and partial derivative is the elimination of indirect dependencies between variables in partial derivatives.", and this is hidden in the section Examples but, in my humble opinion, should be in the lead and in a noted section of that article.
I feel that my lack of any foundational understanding concerning a subject may be a reason not to try to get into a philosophical discussion on said subject but this does not mean that I can not see errors, things presented as to be confusing, or certain important things omitted.
Prima facie the article " Principia Mathematica" appears well laid out although there would probably be a great multitude of readers that do not need 400 pages to explain what was accepted before grade school. I would imagine there could be found some that could present some form of argument though.
Considering these discussions I have not forgotten that a user name is (to me) improperly used in the main space of Wikipedia. This was not addressed in replying comments nor in edits. Rational convincing arguments do not include suppositions, poor examples, personal opinions, non-Wikipedia culture, or hints as to reasoning. It was used and consensus by silence has allowed it to remain. "The world changes, and Wikipedia must change with it.", and I now object, so would you mind choosing a better example? I can pass this by the community to see if a particular example is justification (or not) or choose another avenue of dispute resolution. Perhaps my "immediate understanding" is just a lack of comprehensibility so maybe I should just go this route to see if there are minds more equipped to reach a more logical conclusion. Otr500 ( talk) 10:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Placing a Wikipedia user name in an article main space, a real (current or past) user or even a fictitious user, would be covered by Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning original research, blogs, notability, references, self promotion, indiscriminate collection of information, verifyability, and possibly more. The fact that a real and current user name is the subject, that also happens to be a major contributor, raises issues of conflict of interest. Otr500 ( talk) 04:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The positions that you are representing are, in my opinion, unhelpful to Wikipedia.
Regarding confusion: I stand by my original statements.
Regarding a History section: I don't particularly care about the history, personallyâI don't particularly care that someone thinks that we would be deprived of this concept (or at least this terminology) unless some guy named Boethius wrote about it. Of course, I don't mind if information about such history is introduced, but I think it's important to recognize that there are two approaches to this subject at play (I am concerned primarily with the latter):
Regarding notability: I personally feel that in general, the concept of "notability" is mostly a ridiculous one. The purpose of "notability" is found in the fact that resources are finite; if Wikipedia had infinite resources, nobody would care if I made one new article for each of my bowel movements.
Any debate about notability should really only be about the degree of interconnection with other articles that exist both outside and inside Wikipedia.
In this case, I think I have demonstrated even to you that this subject is notable, but quite frankly, I don't care one bit whether or not you (or anyone else) feels that this subject (or any other subject) can be called notable; what is notable to one person is not notable to another (for instance, Boethius is not notable to me in the slightest, but I imagine you'll definitely want him mentioned somewhere in the articleâif only for the juicy reference).
Regarding references: I personally feel that references are only useful for resolving disputes. I don't think it's wrong to synthesize or even to produce original research on Wikipedia, because to me, the freeâflow of ideas and information is what is importantânot whether some bloke said the same thing in some other medium.
For instance, let's assume that this article does perform a synthesis that cannot be attributed to some nonâWikipedia source. What are you going to do with that synthesis? Remove it? To me, that would be a highly immoral destruction of useful information (as long as that synthesis is not in dispute). Ultimately, there is no, say, "journal" that is more peerâreviewed than Wikipedia.
Now, I recognize that this stance is diametrically opposed to the stance that some users of Wikipedia have. However, it is my opinion that those with the alternative view are unhelpful to Wikipedia; such people destroy value just to play some game with themselves (possibly because they are unable to help in creating real value in the first place).
Regarding the example:
Do you see the richness of this example? Perhaps you don't, but your reasons for removing this particular example are absurd, especially in the face of such richness. Mfwitten ( talk) 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I am listing comments on the project page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. Otr500 ( talk) 08:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, perhaps a compromise will do:
In any case, the title Genusâdifferentia definition seems to be suitable:
However, as another alternative, the article Definition has long had the section:
Though a bit circuitous, it would be a decent article title:
Mfwitten ( talk) 20:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this section WP:OR, or is there a reference to a discussion of this sort? Unless a reference can be given, I suggest it should be removed. It's not a particularly essential bit in any case. Phiwum ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Your thoughts are incomplete. Fortunately, the article, as it was written, can help you understand. In particular, now that you have removed the sections, the article ends with precisely your example:
At this point, though, you are left with 2 definitions for a square. Which definition is correct? Is a square a manifestation of a rectangle or is it a manifestation of a a rhombus? The section titled "Multiplicity" guides the reader's own thoughts toward an understanding in increasing generality:
In particular, that text directs the reader to consider when and how some differentiae may be transformed into genera, and that when this transformation is applied uniformly, one arrives at a structure that involves "is-a" and "has-a" relationships, which was described in the next section that you deleted.
Let me put this into a different light: Much of the text that you just destroyed is merely a recording of deductive logic and intellectual musings, the merit of which any reader is capable of considering on his own without any help from a blessed authority; requiring the citation of some authority imposes an extreme limitation on the freeâflow of this kind of information. Indeed, the article is now obviously less complete.
You are not improving Wikipedia by destroying content like this. Your destructive edit is no doubt an unintended consequence of the "policy" you cite. Mfwitten ( talk) 03:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the text that I wrote makes these two statements:
So, most importantly, you are making a straw man argument; you are fighting against a position that I do not actually take. In particular, the text that I wrote never states that any differentia can be regarded as a hasâa relationship (as you imply it does), but only that it is the differentia of a definition (namely, the nonâgenus portion of the differentia) that may be used for expressing a hasâa relationship, which is discussed by the sections on multiplicity and structure (which you destroyed).
Your example is interesting (as I hope you'll see), but it does not help your case (in fact, it helps mine). For reference, here's the example:
Now, I imagine that the term Piety is being defined, so let's place it in a more canonical form:
There is an implied verb here:
What does "pertaining to" mean? It's actually ambiguous language, but I would say it basically means "a manifestation of":
In terms of a definition by genus and differentia, when:
then [a] Y is a genus of X, and it can simply be written:
So, the example may be simplified further:
Now, look at the form:
As you can see, there is no non-genus portion of the differentia of this definition, so of course you cannot find a hasâa relationship. Your example doesn't express one! It is similar to the example presented in the Multiplicity section (which you deleted):
That bit about "possibly no differentia" is referring to the fact that when there is no nonâgenus portion of the differentia of a definition, then after the transformation, there will be no traditionally discernible differentia.
At this point, I've already exposed your example as being nonsensical with respect to your argument, but let's continue analyzing it. You stated:
That is not correct. Firstly, what does this portion of your example:
mean, anyway? It's a reference to a portion of an existing definition, namely the definition of "justice". That is, "That part of justice" is an abstraction; it is something that has been abstracted away from the definition of "justice" (fortunately, you haven't yet destroyed the part of the article that expounds upon abstraction). So, which portion has been abstracted away? Well, that portion pertaining to service to the gods, of course! So, your example is really a specification for how to abstract away a portion of the definition of "justice" (but not explicitly what that abstraction really is), and the term "piety" is simply the name given to that abstraction, and (as already shown) the genus of "piety" is:
That is, "piety" is "[a] service to the gods", which certainly agrees with my understanding of "piety". Now, what about its relationship to "justice"? Well, "piety" could be employed in the definition of "justice" as one of two things:
We don't know which role it plays, though, because the portion of the definition of "justice" is never specified (and neither is an explicit definition of "piety"). However, my understanding of "justice" suggests that "piety" is in fact employed as a genus of justice: When justice is served, the gods are served; justice is a manifestation of piety; justice is piety. So, as you can see, all of the pieces fit nicely together.
In short, your point of contention does not exist; only your own confusion exists.
In further defense of the importance of the section on multiplicity, I firstly note that I am a reader who would be deeply troubled by the presence of multiple definitions for a single term, and having this kind of guiding text to focus my thinking would save me a lot of strife, personally; the presence of this text is something that you as a reader may shrug off as a triviality, but for me as a reader, it would save a great deal of mental anguish. So, in keeping the text, there's very little (if any) harm for some readers, and there's a great benefit for others.
In further defense of the importance of the section on multiplicity, I secondly note that it directly leads to thinking about the structure of not only a set of definitions, but also the structure of a single definition, and how isâa and hasâa relationships can be mapped to genera and differentiae (and, at least to some large degree, vice versa). It is essential, in my opinion, to making a smooth transition to the subject of structure, a subject which is important for a number of reasons.
A large number of the readers of Wikipedia are no doubt people who are familiar with objectâoriented programming, a subject in which isâa, hasâa, derivation (differentiation, extension, etc.), abstraction, and even multiplicity play fundamental roles in understanding the conceptual world and essentially the physical world; I think that making this connection will ignite an explosion of understanding in their heads, and it will perhaps lead others to these related subjects. For others, the development of the terms "species", "individual", "identity", and their connection to linguistic elements such as a pars pro toto synechdoche will trigger other understandings.
In any case, this makes sense:
However, this almost always does not make sense:
That rule only makes sense when resources are limited, such as when an article has become very lengthy, and it becomes worthwhile to reorganize or streamline it, etc. Put another way: That rule is only valuable because of our current limitations as humans, and I certainly don't think it can be said to apply in thise case.
On the matter of citations, consider this: If a cited book states exactly what has been stated in this article, then you personally may remain just as confused and/or unswayed as you have been; what, then, does this book title do for you in this case that is so magical? Will you immediately be satisfied by what has been written? If so, then your approach to editing Wikipedia is unthinking and at a greater risk of being harmful (in fact, it has just been harmful). Let's say that I am the one who wrote that book; what in this situation has changed then? In this sense, the citation would corroborate not the reliability of what has been written on Wikipedia, but rather just my own determination to get the information on Wikipedia.
Look at all of this careful thought that is at the basis of what has been written. Look at how I've used what was talked about in the article (before you destroyed it) to help you understand your own example in great depth. Why are you so adamant about destroying this useful information when you offer nothing to contribute in its place? Clearly, the article was superior before your edit. Mfwitten ( talk) 21:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion that we are having is part of your argument; your argument for a destructive edit is based (at least partially) on it. Therefore, the discussion belongs here.
Firstly, I address the continuing qualms surrounding the example on which you base your argument. Secondly, I address the accusations of WP:OR.
With regard to abstraction, first take a look at the discussion on abstraction. For reference, here is one of the definitions of a square that is presented:
Now consider this definition:
As with your example of "piety", this is a vague specification for an abstraction; the definition of a rectangle given here is specifying that something is being abstracted away from the definition of a square. As with the treatment of your example:
Because we are actually given the definition of a square (unlike with "justice"), we can surmise which part of a square is actually meant by the abstraction specification, thereby allowing for an explicit definition:
Just as "service to the gods" in your example is a genus of "piety", so it is that "a quadrilateral with certain interior angles" is a genus of "a rectangle".
By substituting the definition of a rectangle into the definition of a square, one gets:
Just as "piety" in your example is (likely) a genus of "justice" (and certainly not the other way around), so it is that "a rectangle" is a genus of "a square" (and certainly not the other way around); a square is a manifestation of a rectangle; a square is a rectangle.
As for WP:OR, I think that WP:SYNTHNOT is instructive:
Have I really expanded human knowledge rather than just thoughtfully present it? Please tell me if I have, and tell me which journal of note would accept my article.
The only thing going for the detractors of what I have written is the lack of citations. To that, I think the very first footnote of WP:OR is instructive:
Citations are not necessary if there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This, combined with the spirit of acceptable synthesis makes what I have written acceptable, and WP:IGNORE makes what I have written essential. Mfwitten ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral point of view â All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
- Verifiability â Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthâmeaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
- No original research â Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.
These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. These three policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles
Your "piety" example has been confusing, because you conflate the notions of intensional and extensional definitions. Basically, the language for your definition of "piety":
is meant to be interpreted in the context of an extensional definition of "justice" rather than an intensional definition by genus and differentia; the term "justice" is very silently assumed to be written something like this:
Here, the term "justice" is being defined by listing all members of the genus "justice", and thus the words "that part of justice" actually mean "a member of the genus justice" (or, as I've been using in other comments, "a manifestation of justice"), which can simply be reduced to "justice" and employed as the genus of a definition of "piety" by genus and differentia:
Perhaps an expanded system of definitions by genus and differentia might look like the following:
Mfwitten ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
You are arguing against a statement that is not there, and thus ALL of your examples are wasted.
The text I wrote for the article states that the differentia of a definition (namely, the nonâgenus portion of the differentia of a definition) is simply a place where a hasâa relationship may be specified.
What I wrote for the article is indeed a weaker statement than that against which you are arguing (and which does not exist in what I wrote), but that does not render it as having no value; in fact, the value comes from simply mentioning hasâa relationships along side isâa relationships. Mfwitten ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
While I've already made my point, I'll entertain the example you provided, which is:
With regard to that example, you stated:
Let's do some abstraction to make the example clearer:
So, the non-genus portion of the differentia of the definition of "a sequence" that you provided does indeed provide a means by which to express a hasâa relationship, namely:
Similarly, the definition you provided expresses a constraint on an existing hasâa relationship:
The constraint is that each node be a SequenceNode. So, the nonâgenus portion of the differentia of the definition of "a sequence" that you provided does express new hasâa relationships:
As an aside, even a genus provides the means by which to express a hasâa relationship; after all, just expressing that a sequence is a tree is enough to express that a sequence has one or more nodes, for instance. Note that what I wrote for the article does not preclude such thinking (however, I would argue that such thinking is not worthy of prominence given that such a hasâa relationship depends on the existence of an isâa relationship). Mfwitten ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey ho.
I was looking through some old revisions of this article, and I saw this one. There are some things I like about it, and I wondered whether others would agree.
First, the introduction explicitly mentions "species", which is an essential term in traditional presentations of genus-difference, but is currently omitted until the "human being" example (where "species" could well mean the biological classification, not the term usually meant in this context).
Second, I really like the tables that break down the examples clearly into genus and difference â and make no special consideration for the cases in which the difference involves membership in a genus. Those look very clearly presented.
I don't mean to kick Mfwitten while he's down, and I know that he's the reason we've lost the old intro and the table presentation of definitions, but it seems to me that these losses were a mistake. Any opinions? Phiwum ( talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: The SEP refers to Book V (Zeta) of Aristotle's metaphysics, not the Topics. I think that this book may be more relevant for us, since it seems to deal more explicitly with differentia. Phiwum ( talk) 16:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
From my own shelves, I've found the following references.
These are four of the first six books I grabbed off of my shelf. The only two which do not discuss genus-difference are Baronet's Logic and Washburn's The Vocabulary of Critical Thinking (which is not so focused on logic per se). It should be very easy to add references to this article.
We should probably also refer to Aristotle's treatment of such definitions. I don't know where that occurs offhand. Phiwum ( talk) 13:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering if this method of definition includes those which start by (perhaps implicitly) abstracting from an existing definition to create a genus, and then becoming more specific again with different differentia - or if there is a different term for such a process.
As an example of what I mean I offer the definition of "Scotch Chess": It's chess, but after White's first move, each player makes several consecutive moves, namely one more than the number of moves made by the previous player.
The abstraction made is "chess, except that the order in which the order of play remains unspecified", followed by differentiation by specifying an order of play that is different to that of chess. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.181.145 ( talk) 20:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)