April 27
Category:2005 in United States meteorology
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was:
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 16. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC) - Propose merging Category:2005 in United States meteorology to Category:2005 in meteorology
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Does not appear to be part of larger series. Tim! (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia long term abuse
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy rename (criterion C2.A) to Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia long term abuse to Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse
- Nominator's rationale: Per this move of the corresponding project page. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Rename as proposed, possibly speedily. –xenotalk 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per C2A. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Building Information Modeling
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Building Information Modeling to Category:Building information modeling
- Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. Wizard191 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM to Category:Computer-aided engineering
- Nominator's rationale: Based on the definition given at computer-aided engineering (CAE) it encompasses CNC, CAD, and CAM, plus other topics. So this new title is more encompassing and more friendly to those who are unfamiliar with the acronyms. Wizard191 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Previous CfD ... Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23 ... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support The current name is far too vague. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support, but with one comment. the following external definition would also confirm it: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130566/computer-aided-engineering -- but when I studied engineering I was always told that CAE is different from CAD or CAM. See "(CAE) has come to mean the computer solution of engineering problems" here: http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/EST10/site/supparticles/Computer-aided-engineering.pdf Thanks, Jordiferrer (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedia books
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: extremely complicated. From reviewing the discussion below, I believe the consensus with the fate of these categories was as follows.
I'll be contacting the editors who took substantial participation of this discussion before sending the categories off to WP:CFDW, just to make sure I haven't made a mistake or overlooked any detail. — ξxplicit 08:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
- This section is merely an introduction to the several book-related discussions below.
The discussions of April 7 got unfocused, and where made at a bad time (several problems were caused by out of date software, which were in the process of being resolved). Now that these have been resolved, I'm re-submitting these discussions so we can talk about them in a more focus light, unhindered by technical problems. If someone could close the old ones, if would be much appreciated.
This submission is a bit differently than usual because I'm trying to untangle an incoherent mess, and the nomination is more complex than usual. Pardon the complexity of the requests, I spent several hours trying to make sense of things and try to explain them as best I could. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- This all looks very complex - maybe it should go via WP:CENT to draw more people to it and have page of its own? Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not close the April 7 discussions (since I am not an uninvolved editor), but I did add notes requesting that no one procedurally close the nominations below as duplicates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia books[edit]
- Propose emptying This category should only contain sub-categories. The tracking categories are Category:Wikipedia books (user books) and Category:Wikipedia books (community books), not this one. Note that for now, the category will slowly repopulate itself over time, as the book-creator is not yet up to date with regards to categories, but this silly behaviour should stop by May 5. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Container-ize per nom, but do not empty right away. This category houses books which have not yet been categorized into an appropriate topic-specific category, and so should be emptied manually by recategorizing its contents rather than emptied by a bot. If there is consensus in the discussion immediately below this one to eliminate categorization of user books by topic, then this category should be emptied of user books only. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Black Falcon here. That seems the best option (never heard of "containers" before, but it makes sense). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sub-categories of Category:Wikipedia books (user books)[edit]
- Propose Renaming (option A) /Deletion (option B)
The current categorization scheme with regards to user book, is
- Category:Wikipedia books
- Category:Wikipedia books (user books)
- Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Topic 1
- Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Topic 2
During the last discussion, the following (Option A) gained consensus
- Category:Wikipedia books
- Category:Wikipedia books (user books)
- Category:Wikipedia user books on Topic 1
- Category:Wikipedia user books on Topic 2
However, before going further, I would like to propose the following (Option B):
- Delete all user book subcategories
My rationale is the following. This is personal content, it's not part of the encyclopedia. Several of these books are quite frankly, and without meaning offense to anyone, crap, while others are only of interest to their creator. We don't index these user books because of this, as well as several other reasons such as possible neutrality concerns, lack of supervision, etc... It makes no sense in my opinion, to spend time on categorizing and sub-categorizing personal pages, and encourage people to browse them. Category:Wikipedia books (user books) is really the only category that is needed here. With that one we can keep track of user books through watchlists, check for vandalism, BLP issues, spam, etc...
So in recap, Option A = keep user book subcategories, Option B = delete them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Option B as nominator. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Option B (delete) per nom. I think that Headbomb makes a strong case for deleting these categories instead of retaining and renaming them. Since user books are largely subject only to the most basic quality control (i.e., the speedy deletion criteria and WP:BLP), we really shouldn't be directing readers to them. Overall, I agree that the small, potential usefulness of categorizing and subcategorizing user books does not justify the time needed to properly sort them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Category list for Option A (rename)
|
|---|
|
Category list for Option B (delete)
|
|---|
|
Sub-categories of Category:Wikipedia books (community books)[edit]
- Propose Renaming The community books subcategories debate reached the same point as the last one. That is, the current categorization scheme, as far as community books are concerned, is this:
- Category:Wikipedia books
- Category:Wikipedia books (community books)
- Category:Wikipedia:Books on Topic 1
- Category:Wikipedia:Books on Topic 2
However, we could end up deleting user book categories, so we have two scenarios. Assuming user book sub-categories don't get deleted, then community books should mimic user books. (Option A)
- Category:Wikipedia books
- Category:Wikipedia books (community books)
- Category:Wikipedia community books on Topic 1
- Category:Wikipedia community books on Topic 2
This gained consensus last time. However if user book sub-categories get deleted, then IMO we don't need the "community" part, and we could just skip the formalities. (Option B)
- Category:Wikipedia books
- Category:Wikipedia books on Topic 1
- Category:Wikipedia books on Topic 2
With Category:Wikipedia books (community books) being nothing more than a tacking sub-category, much like Category:Wikipedia books (user books) .
So in recap, if user book sub-categories do not get deleted, it'll be Option A. The discussion concerns what should happens if they do get deleted, Option A, or Option B? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Option B as nominator. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Option B iff the user-books-by-topic categories are deleted; else, option A (i.e., "per nom"). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Category list for Option A (rename to Wikipedia community books)
|
|---|
|
Category list for Option B (rename to Wikipedia books)
|
|---|
|
Category:Wikipedia:User page Books[edit]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is obsolete and completely redundant with the automatically-populated Category:Wikipedia books (user books). Simply delete it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Izno (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- If the nomination to delete user-books-by-topic categories (see #Sub-categories of Category:Wikipedia books (user books)) is successful, then delete; else, merge to Category:Wikipedia books (user books). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Again there is nothing to be merged, Category:Wikipedia books (user books) already contains every user books, and it is populated by ((saved book)) rather than by hard-coding the category on the page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant "merge the subcategories" (if they are not deleted). The books themselves are, as you note, already (and automatically) in Category:Wikipedia books (user books). -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Again there is nothing to be merged, Category:Wikipedia books (user books) already contains every user books, and it is populated by ((saved book)) rather than by hard-coding the category on the page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia:Other Books[edit]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. De facto useless in its current use. Something similar for community books can be created if need be, but for now we have enough to deal with. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete. --Izno (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. All three pages are already in Category:Wikipedia books (user books), so deleting this category will not leave them uncategorized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia:Books for Testing Purposes[edit]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedia books (test books), to mimic the other tracking categories Category:Wikipedia books (user books), Category:Wikipedia books (community books), Category:Wikipedia books (incorrectly categorized books).
- Delete: I don't really see a point to this category. If people need to test a book, then they can do so without categorizing it. We don't have categories for all the personal sandboxes out there, nor a category for the sandbox of sandboxes. --Izno (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia content guidelines
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 27. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia content guidelines to Category:Wikipedia article content guidelines
- Nominator's rationale: Dab to avoid confusion with Wikipedia project content such as user pages ,templates and categories Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- But many of the pages in that category are about project content. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:User pages. If you really want to rename the category you will have to move such pages into another category first. Gurch (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia project content guidelines. I've removed what I think is project content Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can see that category being confused with Wikipedia Project guidelines such as MILHIST and getting polluted; a better name would have been Category:Wikipedia non-article guidelines or some such. An I don't understand Wikipedia:Spam only in that category, as it applies to all pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia project content guidelines. I've removed what I think is project content Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- But many of the pages in that category are about project content. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:User pages. If you really want to rename the category you will have to move such pages into another category first. Gurch (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arista Records
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 16. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Arista Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow with no chance of expansion. Either delete or upmerge to RCA Records Music Group category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as long as the main article exists. There are hundreds of articles in the sub categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Strings of symbols
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. From the discussion below, it appears that this category has an unclear title, as well as an unclear inclusion criteria. Additionally, there appears to be confusion regarding the difference between a set and a sequence, which further adds to the confusion of the intent of the creator of the category and the contents of this category. Due to the lack of a clear defining characteristic of this category, the result of this discussion was delete. I should also mention that at least two alternative category names were brought up: Category:Well-formed formulae and Category:Sequences of symbols. If the creator of this category or any other editor would be open to creating a well-defined category with a clear scope, I would suggest that route. The discussion held here appears to show that this category simply does not work. — ξxplicit 08:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Strings of symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. No characterization of what should be in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- The category is a perfectly useful one. Furthermore, there is no notion that what is and is not a "string of symbols" is somehow controversial. "Strings of symbols" is a section in the outline of logic. If there were any issues about such a section they would have arisen already. This category has great potential to organize a great many other articles and categories. Greg Bard 02:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I ignore the outline articles, because I consider them unencyclopedic, just as news article section titles are not reilable. None the less, we would need an article strings of symbols for the definition to be "obvious". If you could provide a definition, I could see if that could be a reasonable category; if it could be, I'd probably withdraw the nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - we do have Well-formed formula, according to which 'Strings of symbols' fall into either 'nonsense' or 'well-formed formulae'. So perhaps a rename to Category:Well-formed formulae would do, after removing any nonsense. Occuli (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I find your suggestion to be a collaborative and productive one. I would be open to this. I would also be open to a merge of this cat with Category:Sequences and series.Greg Bard 21:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- That seems somewhat productive, whether or not intended to be. (I'm forced to admit that I cannot see how, with that reading, it was intended to be productive.) However, it has nothing to do with Category:Sequences and series, as those are supposed to be infinite sequences and series, and most of them are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You see Arthur, Occuli has suggested a different formulation rather than demand deletion. That is how collaboration on writing works. It's an art not a science. It involves the idea that one's own perspective isn't the only one. Your practice of deletionism is very unhelpful to the progress, expansion, and organization of things. This behavior is consistent with very stilted, robotic thinking. I am sure you do not wish to portray yourself this way.
- That seems somewhat productive, whether or not intended to be. (I'm forced to admit that I cannot see how, with that reading, it was intended to be productive.) However, it has nothing to do with Category:Sequences and series, as those are supposed to be infinite sequences and series, and most of them are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I also do not think "well formed formulas" would be the best formulation for the title of this category and the purpose it is intended to serve. However I am open-minded to it in the interest of progress and collaboration. The category Category:Sequences and series sure isn't titled Category:Infinite sequences and series, but perhaps a subcat would be of value.
- Stop removing categories until the fate of this category is determined, Arthur. Greg Bard 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- So propose a name change from Category:Sequences and series to Category:Infinite sequences and series. The category description says "More formally, a sequence is a function with a domain equal to the set of positive integers." (Looks infinite to me, although it doesn't precisely say "infinite".) Category:Finite sequences and series might be a related category to this one, but it isn't really a subcategory, as the sequences and series are (usually) sequences of numbers, rather than of "symbols". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Although I think this category should be deleted, I would be absolutely sure that it should be deleted if it were proposed to include Category:Sequences and series. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looking back over a previous comment, strings of symbols constitutes a WP:SYN violation, as computer science doesn't use formal symbols. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is somewhat productive. I am open to your suggestion about renamingthat cat. However, I do try to leave the math categories alone for the most part. If you think this (cat:infinite and cat:finite series) will be a useful cat proposal, then I am for it. As for your last ultimatum about not including Category:Sequences and series under Category:Strings of symbols... just why exactly is that so offensive? Are there series and sequences in math that are not strings of symbols? It looks like more anti-philosophy/logic chauvinism (and I'm sure you would never...oh never mind).Greg Bard 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is the scope of this category supposed to be? It contains Theory (mathematical logic) and Category:Rules of inference; neither of these is a string of symbols in general. A succinct definition of the intended contents of the category would be helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The point of this category is to make it possible to properly classify articles under the category trees of categories such as Category:Physical objects and Category:Concepts (i.e. the applicable ontological categories). Yes a theory and a rule of inference are strings of symbols. Is that the only thing it is? No. But insofar as categorizing these things according to what ontlological category it is in, yes they are strings of symbols in general. I am certainly open to some other way of arranging things that would be most comfortable to the mathematicians, etc. I am intrigued by cat:mathematical objects and cat:math structures. If this is the way you guys see it, then that would be fine, if those cats were under the "concepts" cat tree somehow so as to capture these things. I think proper categorization can help avoid issues in the future. It seems to me perfectly obvious what this category is for, so I am puzzled by the mystified responses I get. Possibly we need to put it under cat:logical symbols instead of just cat:symbols so as to make it clearer. I am open, but not entirely happy with 'cat:wff' as an alternative proposal. There are plenty of non-wffs that are strings of symbols (i.e. nonsense), and I would like to make the distinction clear. Greg Bard 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- A theory is a set of formulas; in first-order logic the formulas are strings of symbols. So a theory itself is not a string of symbols. A rule of inference can be infinitary (e.g. the ω rule) but a string of symbols is always finite. This is the sort of thing that makes people confused about the contents of the category.
- The point of this category is to make it possible to properly classify articles under the category trees of categories such as Category:Physical objects and Category:Concepts (i.e. the applicable ontological categories). Yes a theory and a rule of inference are strings of symbols. Is that the only thing it is? No. But insofar as categorizing these things according to what ontlological category it is in, yes they are strings of symbols in general. I am certainly open to some other way of arranging things that would be most comfortable to the mathematicians, etc. I am intrigued by cat:mathematical objects and cat:math structures. If this is the way you guys see it, then that would be fine, if those cats were under the "concepts" cat tree somehow so as to capture these things. I think proper categorization can help avoid issues in the future. It seems to me perfectly obvious what this category is for, so I am puzzled by the mystified responses I get. Possibly we need to put it under cat:logical symbols instead of just cat:symbols so as to make it clearer. I am open, but not entirely happy with 'cat:wff' as an alternative proposal. There are plenty of non-wffs that are strings of symbols (i.e. nonsense), and I would like to make the distinction clear. Greg Bard 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Carl, up until Arthur nominated it, I was unfamiliar with the concerns that would arise in creating this category. Perhaps this type of thing is what we need to help resolve issues in the future. My initial intention was the "This category is intended to contain objects which are strings of symbols of some language." I think that "string" is sufficiently clear. However I was unaware of the distinction that a "string" is always finite whereas a "sequence" could be infinite. Every string is a sequence, so perhaps a rename to Category:Sequences of symbols" would more appropriately address the tastes of those interested.Greg Bard 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right, but a theory is not a sequence of symbols either, it is a set of sequences of symbols. However, at least with that sort of guidance ("This category is intended to contain objects which are strings of symbols of some language.") people can see which articles are intended to be in the category. It's always good to write something like that in a newly created category page, so that other people can see what you had in mind. I have no object to a category for "objects which are strings of symbols of some language" although we would need to remove a few present category members that don't fit that definition. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...and a set of sequences of symbols is what? Also a "sequences of symbols" isn't it? A "{" followed by the symbol for some concept, followed by a comma, followed by the symbol for a concept, ... , followed by a "}" is a theory. This category is intended to help people who are mystified by the strange looking language that math appears to be to many average everyday people. I think the image on the formal theorem article is a good indicator of what I had in mind. The point to to classify things ontologically, which is to identify what it is. The justification for such categories should be pretty straightforward. I will create Category:Sequences of symbols so as to address the precise definitions used. Greg Bard 19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, no. A set, even a countable set, is not a "sequence": a "sequence" requires the order be specified. It's true that a (countable) sequence of (finite) strings of symbols can be thought of as a (countable) sequence of symbols. In fact, that a theory can be thought of as a sequence is a critical step in the proof of the Godel incompleteness theorem.
- As for Category:Sequences and series (of numbers), you still need to think of a number as a symbol for it be included in this category.
- Also, for what it's worth, formulae of L∞ω are not technically ordered, without using the axiom of choice, so they cannot be considered to be "sequences".
- Again, Category:Rules of inference (in a formal context) is a relationship between formulae, not a set or sequence of formulae.
- That being said, I now believe that the category can have a characterization, but unless it's specified, it should be deleted and recreated when then meaning is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Arthur, I think you are mish-mashing terms. Yes there is a sense in which the order matters and there is a sense in which the order does not matter. The order of the members of a set doesn't matter to the identity of the set, however the various formulations of the same set can only be identified as that particular set if the order of the symbols matter. I think you need to make up your mind one way or the other so we can name a category that will satisfy you. There is a vast category of mathematical concepts that are either strings (you don't like that), or they are sequences. I am pretty sure they are "sequences" by your own definitions. When asking someone 'Is "xyzabcdefg" a set?" (perhaps in a language in which "x" means "{" and "g" means "}") the order is going to matter or else its nonsense. The set T:{t1, t2, t3} is obviously not the same thing as "t2, } , t3, { , t1" Be well Arthur, I am finding this line of discussion to be positive. Greg Bard 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no sense in which the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers is a "string of symbols", and no sense in which it is a "sequence of symbols". It is not even countable, and its elements are not symbols. I'm sorry to say that your comment makes it appear you are utterly confused about the difference between a set and a sequence, and also about the relationship between a set and an English description of the set. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Carl, we are trying to classify Wikipedia articles in categories. I seems to me as if the effort is going into frustrating the effort not clarifying. The last time I read it "the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers" was a sequence of symbols. In fact every attempt to talk intelligently about these things uses (what do you want to call it) a sequence of symbols. They are right there in front of you. Certainly they are not symbols of a formal language, however they do communicate the idea we are talking about (and yes we are talking about ideas... and yes we are talking about physical objects called symbols). Invariably we are talking about things which are some combination of symbols as you define and use them. It should be prefectly obvious to anyone what I am trying to do with this category. If you are going to provide counterexamples (for instance to the "principle of abstraction") then that should form the basis of some more refined category. If the effort is just that well we can't do anything because the issues are too complicated, then I think you have missed the whole point of the effort.
- Your comment "I'm sorry to say that your comment makes it appear you are utterly confused about the difference between a set and a sequence, and also about the relationship between a set and an English description of the set." is unhelpful, inaccurate, and consistent with what I was saying about "prima donnas" who demand everything be exactly the way they are comforatable before acknowledging that a given statement makes any sense at all. When you do this, you lose credibility. The word confused just doesn't mean anything to you and you throw it around very carelessly. I don't appreciate it at all. Furthermore, the statement stands in need of justification. I'm confused am I? Exactly what is it that I am confusing that I have expressly stated then?
- My comments do not display any confusion about the difference between a set and a sequence at all. A set is an idea, so you think it is fair to berate me for referring to physical objects (symbols). A set is a string/sequence/series/queue (or whatever precise term you demand to see before acknowledging that there is any sense in anything in your view.) of symbols, and when I attempt to deal with them in that capacity, you guys manage to mish-mash things beacuse a set is an idea. Dealing with people in good faith involves not doing these sorts of things.
- You guys are so eager to poke holes in my statements that you can't even see that you are tripping over yourselves. I have provided the proof that your statement was false: "the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers" is a sequence of symbols. Would I be justified in calling your statement proof that you are utterly confused or what? (Please no rejoinder about formal and natural language as I am not confused about that either.) With that said, there may be examples of sets, or theorems, etc. which are not "sequences of symbols" however that is not an argument against the category. We are perfectly able to deal with outlying cases, while dealing with the vast majority of "normal" cases in a coherent, and convenient manner.Greg Bard 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- The English phrase "the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers" is a string of symbols. The the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers is not. I would expect a person educated in philosophy to appreciate the difference. (For concreteness, in both cases I am talking about the language which has a constant symbol for every real number, in other words the elementary diagram of the field of real numbers.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Carl, this discussion isn't productive. If you mathematicians would be responsible for your own ontology, I wouldn't have to step into that area at all. At this point I will have to presume that you guys just aren't capable (my own percieved "confusion" notwithstanding.) Why don't you just tell me the ontological scheme that prevails among mathematicians and we can be done with it. (i.e. what scheme would you prefer to use to make sure that all and only concepts are conveniently classified under cat:concepts, and all the various ways symbols are used are conveniently classified under cat:symbols). I do appreciate precise language, and I was unaware that mathematicians considered all strings to be finite. However now that that is clarified it should be a simple matter to rename the category Category:Sequences of symbols. Consistent with Arthur's clarification, all of these things I am talking about can be expressed as some sequence of some symbols. I hope we can agree to something productive. The whole silent-glazed-over-blank-stare type of response from you guys every time a deep issue comes up has become tiresome. I think you are perfectly capable of collaborating on these issues without all the baloney about how confused the participants are. Be well, Carl. Greg Bard 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have no interest in working on Category:concepts; you're on your own for that.
- Carl, this discussion isn't productive. If you mathematicians would be responsible for your own ontology, I wouldn't have to step into that area at all. At this point I will have to presume that you guys just aren't capable (my own percieved "confusion" notwithstanding.) Why don't you just tell me the ontological scheme that prevails among mathematicians and we can be done with it. (i.e. what scheme would you prefer to use to make sure that all and only concepts are conveniently classified under cat:concepts, and all the various ways symbols are used are conveniently classified under cat:symbols). I do appreciate precise language, and I was unaware that mathematicians considered all strings to be finite. However now that that is clarified it should be a simple matter to rename the category Category:Sequences of symbols. Consistent with Arthur's clarification, all of these things I am talking about can be expressed as some sequence of some symbols. I hope we can agree to something productive. The whole silent-glazed-over-blank-stare type of response from you guys every time a deep issue comes up has become tiresome. I think you are perfectly capable of collaborating on these issues without all the baloney about how confused the participants are. Be well, Carl. Greg Bard 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- The English phrase "the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers" is a string of symbols. The the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers is not. I would expect a person educated in philosophy to appreciate the difference. (For concreteness, in both cases I am talking about the language which has a constant symbol for every real number, in other words the elementary diagram of the field of real numbers.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no sense in which the set of all formulas true in the field of real numbers is a "string of symbols", and no sense in which it is a "sequence of symbols". It is not even countable, and its elements are not symbols. I'm sorry to say that your comment makes it appear you are utterly confused about the difference between a set and a sequence, and also about the relationship between a set and an English description of the set. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Arthur, I think you are mish-mashing terms. Yes there is a sense in which the order matters and there is a sense in which the order does not matter. The order of the members of a set doesn't matter to the identity of the set, however the various formulations of the same set can only be identified as that particular set if the order of the symbols matter. I think you need to make up your mind one way or the other so we can name a category that will satisfy you. There is a vast category of mathematical concepts that are either strings (you don't like that), or they are sequences. I am pretty sure they are "sequences" by your own definitions. When asking someone 'Is "xyzabcdefg" a set?" (perhaps in a language in which "x" means "{" and "g" means "}") the order is going to matter or else its nonsense. The set T:{t1, t2, t3} is obviously not the same thing as "t2, } , t3, { , t1" Be well Arthur, I am finding this line of discussion to be positive. Greg Bard 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- However, the category discussed here cannot be for things that can be "expressed as some string of some symbols"; every topic on Wikipedia fits that criterion, obviously. If, as I assume, the category is intended for things that are usually defined to be strings of symbols, or even sequences of symbols, then it cannot include things that are usually defined to be sets instead (like logical theories). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
A symbol is a physical object? I think Greg, as a philosopher, should know better than that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's a separate issue. Regardless of the type/token distinction for symbols, the elementary diagram of the real numbers is not a string of symbols. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is very disingenuous Arthur. You know I have pointed out that symbols are ideas primarily many times before. It's you guys that insist on treating them as solely as physical objects and I have been trying to work with you on that. This is what I am talking about when I point out your bad attitude Art. It seems like you basically have zero honor in discussing these things. Even going to this extreme to take a jab at me, while I am trying to work with you within your own terms'. You should be ashamed of yourself. There is a sense in which symbols are physical objects and there is a sense in which they are ideas. I am trying to accommodate both views so as to be NPOV. I am going to create a Category:Sequences of symbols so as to deal with this situation.
- BTW, Carl No, not every article (hardly any are, and I am surprised and annoyed by this ridiculous stretch) on wikipedia is about a "string (or sequence) of symbols". The article dog is not about the letter "d" followed by the letter "o", etc. It's about an animal which is a physical object. Many of the articles under cat:logic are however. If you don't understand the difference I don't know what to tell you, however it doesn't speak well for you. This confusion you are demonstrating is just as bad as any that I have been perceived to have made. I definitely notice that you guys are very prone to oversimplification (a popular fallacy among old people and police officers), myopia, stilted and robotic thinking, etcetera. I apologize in advance, because I have a great deal of respect for you Carl. I am surprised by this nonsense, and I wonder what your explanation is. I am not trying to be a jerk, I promise, just honest. It seems like very black and white thinking. That is not very productive in an openly editable media. More than once I have had to deal with very broad characterizations from you guys like "Greg thinks this.... well Greg must think EVERYTHING is this... blah blah blah." Anyway, I wish both of you well in any case. I hope you think about my complaints to you guys and lighten up a bit. A diamond ring has meaning, and it is a physical object. Just what is so difficult to understand about this stuff guys? Greg Bard 00:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you name an article that would go in the "sequences of symbols" category that is not presently in the "strings of symbols" category? I thought the main issues were with Rule of inference and Theory (mathematical logic), and neither of those articles fits either of the categories. I think that the real issue here is that, apart from individual formulas in particular formal languages, very few things in mathematics are defined to be strings of symbols. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your position is that "{v,w,x,y}" which is a set, and "((PQ)P)Q" which is a theorem (or a rule of inference, depending on how you look at it) are not sequences of symbols, and I don't see any way that could be. I am not going to argue about it so long as these things are classified under "physical objects" and "concepts" categories in some way that makes sense to you. Perhaps the "well-formed formulas" suggestion would be more acceptable? Sorry I get so prickly about being characterized as "confused." I think it's a bit unfair, unnecessary, and I've pretty much had enough of it. Be well, Carl. Greg Bard 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you name an article that would go in the "sequences of symbols" category that is not presently in the "strings of symbols" category? I thought the main issues were with Rule of inference and Theory (mathematical logic), and neither of those articles fits either of the categories. I think that the real issue here is that, apart from individual formulas in particular formal languages, very few things in mathematics are defined to be strings of symbols. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.