1218:
are learnt by associating them according to the triangle of term, concept and referent. Thus a term is defined in relation to a referent, and a referent is tagged or labelled by a term. Knowing this relationship is the simplest form of making a definition. Thus if nothing is known about the referent of a noun (term), then it is used with an indefinite article, but when it is already known, it is used with a definite article. Knowledge is specific, hence generic terms need to be specified, i.e. defined in order to make sense, or to learn something useful about them. The specific-generic continuum is the illustration of progress of inquiry and knowledge, each time giving another definition of something in the form of topic and comment. Topic is the known part of the compound structure and comment is the new information about the topic. Topic and comment may come in the form of a description or in the form of an explanation. If we are listening and reading we begin with
Description and proceed to Explanation. If we are speaking and writing, we begin with Explanation and proceed to Description. This is called the DEED paradigm created by
1390:
issues regarding classes and taxonomy -- and for me, the nature of distinction and dimensionality, from which imho all this stuff can be constructed -- and we are pushing for something astonishingly simple in the amazing forest of complexity. This is my first post/comment on
Knowledge, and I just gotta thank somebody for how brilliant this all is. And maybe "definition" for me, gets right to the heart of it all. My instinct is -- construct all semantic space from the single primitive element "distinction". In other words -- build all definition as something like "composite dimensional assemblies of distinctions" -- such that every object in the system is constructed from ("defined in terms of") that primitive element (and maybe that ultimate primitive is something like the Dedekind Cut in the real number line?). This review of definition -- particularly stipulative definition -- is so helpful, and the examples so resonant with my own instincts. Thank you.
1959:
438:
994:... in the case of a class, to examples of the right kind". The question is: if a definition gives the meaning of a term by pointing to a proper subset (i.e. not all) of a class, can it be an ostensive definition? If it is not, the last quotation is strongly misleading. If it is (and Wittgenstein's interest suggests that this is so) then either the definition of "extensive definitions" is incorrect, or ostensive definitions are not a form of extensional definition. I don't know the answer - anyone?(
689:
428:
407:
599:
foundational. One person's definition is another person's theorem. Indeed, sometimes a definition will be preceded by a theorem stating "The following n properties of a gadget X are equivalent"; after the proof, the definition will be given "A gadget X is said to be pseudo-tame if the above properties hold"! There is also the concept of a
Definition/Proposition, in which one needs to prove that something exists or is makes sense as part of its definition.
379:
363:
160:
2241:
true. This is also called the closed-world assumption. It can be contrasted with the open world assumption, which is that the agent does not know everything and so cannot make any conclusions from a lack of knowledge. The closed-world assumption requires that everything relevant about the world is known to the agent. This assumption that there is a definition of each atom in terms of clauses is the basis of logic programming."
516:
98:
1926:
1677:
200:
74:
88:
53:
22:
265:
234:
180:
1738:
275:
2151:
There are two examples in the deleted subsection. The first example shows how the definition of ancestor in the previous subsection can be represented as a logic program. The fact that this example is also used in the logic programming article does not affect its relevance to this article. The second
1453:
I just corrected a few minor mistakes in the above-mentioned subsection. But I think the entire paragraph is a bit shaky in respect of its content. In particular, the explanation "An existing definition that serves as a portion of the new definition" for "genus" seems a bit idiosyncratic to me. To my
1217:
Even natural languages are supposed to consist of words (phrases, etc.) that are known to the community in a recursive fashion. Thus what is not known is explained by connecting it to something known. No word is possible to remember for long without any association to anything at all, and most words
993:
There appears to be a contradiction in the article: extensive definitions are defined as "a list naming every object that is a member of a specific set" but ostensive definitions, while said to be "one important form of extensional definition" are also said to give "the meaning of a term by pointing
1338:
A typical example are legal definitions, often listed in an initial section in a statute. The legal defintion may be more precise than the collquial definition, or more restricted, or even wider. For instance, in common parlance an invention is something new, but an "invention" in patent law is not
1196:
It is revealing that googling for "exclusionary definition" yields nothing that
Cesiumfrog would have sought above. Apparently just adding a qualifier fools the search software that the qualifier is the concept being sought. So, Cesiumfrog you have a different POV than most. Keep it up and you will
1556:
In the fallacies of definition section, it states that 'antecedent' clearly cannot be defined without the use of 'consequent', and conversely. This does not seem clear to me at all - it seems not only unnecessary, but circular. Dictionary.com defines antecedent as "a preceding circumstance, event,
1389:
Just to say -- that I find this stuff stunningly interesting. The caliber of interconnected comments foments a major revolution in the science of clear and parsimonious thinking. "Who are these guys, anyway?" We start connecting classical philosophical questions with computer science models and
598:
for example). The article by Gowers contains useful information which could be used to flesh out a section on the topic. However, I would caution against making any sort of dichotomy explicit: there is only one notion of a definition in mathematics, even if some are intuitive, some pragmatic, some
2240:
The recent textbook by Poole and
Mackworth 2023 puts it like this: "clauses with the atom as the head cover all the cases when the atom is true. In particular, an atom with no clauses is false. Under this assumption, an agent can conclude that an atom is false if it cannot derive that the atom is
2155:
There is detailed evidence that logic programs can be viewed as definitions and definitions can be formalised by logic programs in many papers, two of which are cited in the deleted subsection. The two papers are: (1) Denecker, M., Ternovska, E.: A logic of nonmonotone inductive definitions. ACM
621:
for adding a
Philosophy rating to the article, to clarify that this is within the scope of both projects. I am now going to lower the class on the maths rating scale to Start, because although this is a nice article overall, there is some work to do before it covers the mathematical concept. The
1465:
Futhermore: "Bussler, Christoph, and Dieter Fensel, eds. Artificial
Intelligence: Methodology, Systems and Applications: 11th International Conference, AIMSA 2004: Proceedings. Springer-Verlag, 2004. p.6" is hardly the best reference we can find. This is taken from conference proceedings in AI,
2013:
A definition is a carefully crafted statement that reveals the inherent nature of a subject. It pinpoints the intrinsic qualities that distinguish the subject, whether it is abstract or tangible. For abstract concepts, a definition aids in understanding. For tangible entities, it permits
2267:
seem to be at least as important as the definitions of atoms in logic programming. So, I am in favor of a section that present a balanced view of the different sort of definitions considered in computer science, but I am strongly against giving such a undue weight to logic programming.
1533:
Do you think we should add a section on the etymology of the word 'definition'? It's a bit fascinating and to me, and a misnomer. The root latin word is 'finis' - which in Latin means "end." However, defintions have changed, so they are not really "bound" or "brought to an end."
1342:
Perhaps this type of definition is covered by the paragraph "working definitions", but I guess the practical importance requires a better description. Also, a "working definition" suggests that it is preliminary, while for instacne legal definitions definitely are final.
862:
has requested that a citation be found for this. By all means, do so if an appropriate source can be found - but I wonder that anyone might actual question this definition? Is there a problem with this wording? See the criteria for requesting citations set out at
1993:
Motion capture collects a large volume of accurate data on a subject's movement and then creates an Avatar. If you analyze this data with the best
Science has to offer, you can make advancements for the betterment of the world. Hence the portmanteau AvaSci.
2282:
Presumably, by "relevant article" you mean the logic programming article, and I agree with that. But then someone should explain the relationship between definitions and functional programs, and between definitions and type theories.
1557:
object, style, phenomenon, etc." and consequent as "following as an effect or result; resulting (often followed by on, upon, or to)". Neither of these definitions make use of the antonym. Nautilus 06:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
2108:
The linked article uses 13 times the word "definition", but always with the common meaning of the word (nothing specific to logic programming). There is no evidence that there is a specific notion of a definition in logic
73:
2226:, interested readers must pass through specialized Knowledge articles. It results that, with the current state of the specialized articles, the concept of a definition in logic programming cannot be mentioned here.
1334:
Some definitions are simply chosen for practical purposes, notably conciseveness. These definitions can't be right or wrong, they only differ in practical value. Being generally accepted is a plus, but not a need.
2162:
The point of the deleted logic programming section is to show that definitions (when viewed as logic programs) are a Turing complete model of computation. The same point can (and should) be made about functional
2217:
is is intended for a general audience, and therefore must be a summary of the different variants of the concept. So, it must refer to other
Knowledge articles for the technical details. Direct references to
2156:
Trans. Comput. Log. 9(2), 14:1–14:52 (2008) and (2) Warren, D.S. and
Denecker, M., 2023. A better logical semantics for prolog. In Prolog: The Next 50 Years (pp. 82-92). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
2082:
User D.Lizard has deleted the logic programming section, without a proper discussion. I do not want to engage in an editing war. But such major changes should not be made without adequate justification.
1298:
This stuff should not be on a talk-page. I suggest you enter into a dialog with Swartz directly, but if you insist on having it in Knowledge, why not keep it on your user-page or write an essay?
494:
2382:
1014:
The article is a high-frequency target for IP vandalism. It is also frequently viewed. I'm semi-protecting for three month, as per the policy. Vandalism is well over the 5% average.
2037:, the participants can reach an agreement among themselves, by treaty. One advantage of such a process is that unspoken assumptions by the respective participants can be unearthed.
952:
pointed out that 'Oneness' is a new-age and not a philosophical concept. So maybe you should find a link target that is more appropriate, or get rid of the link altogether? --
2347:
2342:
654:
The web page cited above seems to this lay reader to do no more than draw the distinction, already mentioned in the article, between stipulative and descriptive definitions.
1462:
a definition already exists. Though I'm not even sure about that: Does it need to be defined. Is it not often the case that it is simply assumed that its meaning is clear?
1953:
The definition of definition is basically meaning the meaning of a word. For example, the definition of tall means a suggestively high person,thing or object and so on.
979:
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class.
2397:
2337:
2332:
2322:
1858:
144:
1253:
the author says (Under 2.1, near the end) “For example, the term, "pain", is defined, but pain itself is not defined. We define only terms, never their referents.”
542:
296:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1454:
mind it would be more classical to say that the genus is something (a notion, concept, idea, or whatever you want to call it and whatever it turns out to be) that
2186:
must be edited for making this clear. You wrote "the fact that definitions are a Turing complete model of computation is an important property of definitions". In
1029:
Approaching the last month of this semi-protection. Are there any objections to my making this permanent? I think the value of protection has been demonstrated.
2327:
1122:
others in the category, and it moves from the known to the unknown, logically. He said this format can be used to define most things, not just marketing stuff:
2362:
323:
150:
333:
2168:
The fact that definitions are a Turing complete model of computation is an important property of definitions, which should be represented in the article.
622:
maths ratings and comments are copied over to tables at WikiProject Mathematics, so I hope this will attract a maths editor to contribute to the article.
2392:
484:
2352:
386:
248:
189:
169:
67:
63:
2372:
2115:
is a programming paradigm that seems to not be commonly used nowadays. In any case it is a niche research subject that must not appear here per
460:
120:
2387:
2317:
1565:
article defines the case of a standalone 'consequent', without 'antecedent'. You could use this as a counterexample for the statement that "
1416:
298:
1181:
Is there a term for definitions which say what something is not (i.e., that work by excluding everything other than the thing in question)?
2357:
1773:
1435:
1898:
Agree đź‘Ť This article might also benefits to include under a section close to the top an overview of formal perspectives on definitions.
669:
634:
594:
Definitions are a major part of mathematics. Indeed, good definitions can be more important than theorems (think of the definition of a
2377:
2126:(definition of a function or subprogram, of a data type etc. Mentioning logic programming, and logic programing only, gives clearly a
1901:
Two heads better than one. Interested in starting the page together and augment with the essential matter a section of this article?
1721:
2068:
1591:
1576:
1365:
Regarding the following quote from it: "An extensional definition would be a list of all past, present and future prime ministers."
451:
412:
111:
58:
1162:
Wondering if anybody else has come across something similar in philosophy, about this, and if it should be here in this article?--
1286:
288:
239:
2367:
1499:
893:
ISTM that "concision" is not a necessity. Indeed, whole books have been devoted to the definition of a single concept. (e.g.
215:
or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the
2202:
that suggests this equivalence. You assert that definitions and logic programs are equivalent concept, and you cite several
912:
is supposed to summarize the article. Further, if the article is sourced, the lead may not need to be explicitly sourced. --
2206:
to support this assertion. For such a fundamental assertion, primary sources are no sufficient. This must be discuted in
2190:
I read "Horn clause logic programs are Turing complete". I deduce that, for you, "definition" is an alternate name for a
1883:
We need a separate article about definitions in formal logic (such as first-order predicate logic, lambda calculi, etc.)
33:
1434:
This article would be a good place to define 'definiens' and 'definiendum'. 'Definiens' is used without explanation.
2207:
749:
370:
244:
2159:
The view that logic programming is a niche research subject is a subjective opinion, and not a neutral point of view.
1970:
1906:
2288:
2246:
2219:
2173:
2088:
692:
2255:
This must be discussed in the relevant article before it may be included here in a comprehensible way. Moreover
2203:
1420:
1057:
I suppose we should try unprotecting it again, to see how it goes. Protection in itself is never a good thing.
864:
524:
1999:
1777:
1439:
1415:
I do know that the definiendum is not supposed to be in the definition itself. What is the name of this rule?
926:
Cool. unless BMF81 provides some explanation, I will remove the request fqor citation - give it a day or so.
673:
638:
533:
1932:
1781:
1725:
1683:
1617:
depend upon actual existence or only upon suggested existence, even if actual existence is denied (fiction)?
1375:
999:
208:
1902:
1480:
The title suggests that there are several classes of intensional definitions but only one is given, namely
2264:
2223:
1888:
1542:
1397:
909:
1995:
1819:, among others, has been tweeting a faked version of this article, in which the lead has been changed to
734:
could be illustrated with, for example, a picture of a parent pointing out a dog or a rainbow to a child.
2065:
1588:
1573:
1519:
1495:
1202:
1048:
895:
787:
39:
1538:
1371:
764:
I was going to add a portrait of Locke with a caption quoting him (re "where should we stop?"), until I
437:
688:
2284:
2242:
2169:
2084:
2030:
1487:
1320:
1282:
1274:
1267:
1229:
1186:
1167:
1163:
730:
2015:
1079:
I remember a speech a while back, and the speaker, giving a talk on marketing basics, offered this:
21:
2019:
1749:
1655:
1515:
1491:
1467:
980:
595:
459:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
119:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2273:
2231:
2140:
1978:
1839:
1800:
1471:
995:
738:
443:
103:
1257:
859:
427:
406:
2023:
2199:
2187:
2183:
2112:
2102:
1884:
1393:
1348:
826:
What about using Biological classification - but for some reason the caption will not show.
623:
605:
280:
1584:
What if we were to strike 'nor conversely' in #2 of the 'fallacies of definition' section? --
2222:
are not suitable since they are generally not understandable by a general audience. So, for
2123:
2062:
2040:
1966:
1585:
1570:
1198:
1134:(category) that has four legs, runs fast, and can be ridden by humans (point of difference).
1044:
2034:
769:
2256:
2127:
2116:
1965:
it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
1316:
1303:
1278:
1263:
1225:
1182:
1062:
1034:
1019:
1145:(category) that grows several stories tall, has leaves & roots (point of difference).
948:
points to a disambiguation page, which to my noobie understanding is against standards.
743:
1110:
Crest (subject) is a toothpaste (category) that prevents cavities (point of difference).
1789:
1745:
1651:
1362:
I very much appreciate this article and thank the editor for the time dedicated to it.
212:
378:
362:
159:
2311:
2269:
2227:
2136:
2135:
In summary, this section does not contain anything that is relevant to this article.
1974:
1866:
1832:
1816:
1793:
1767:
1219:
1148:
966:
953:
855:
A definition is a concise statement explaining the meaning of a term, word or phrase.
811:
Tying any of these into the article would, of course, require a well-written caption.
782:
573:
2044:
1344:
1152:
961:
Is this unity as in the number 1? If that is the case then the link could go to
543:"Fact check: No, Knowledge didn't change its definition of the term 'definition'"
2260:
2195:
2191:
2052:
717:
576:
456:
116:
97:
2214:
2048:
1546:
1299:
1058:
1030:
1015:
962:
949:
927:
881:
867:
841:
827:
794:
774:
723:
713:
700:
655:
515:
433:
293:
270:
199:
93:
1828:
1247:
913:
900:
885:
815:
756:
618:
586:
546:
1368:
With very few exceptions a list of future prime ministers is not doable.
1862:
1567:'consequent' clearly cannot be defined without the use of 'antecedent'.
1103:
2101:
A large part of it is a copy of a detailed example given in the article
1562:
941:
805:
292:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
87:
52:
1131:
778:
742:
could be illustrated with an animation of someone drawing a circle.
264:
233:
2292:
2277:
2250:
2235:
2177:
2144:
2092:
2071:
2056:
2003:
1982:
1910:
1892:
1870:
1846:
1807:
1753:
1729:
1659:
1639:
depends upon actual existence, how can there ever be a hypothesis?
1594:
1579:
1523:
1503:
1475:
1443:
1424:
1401:
1379:
1352:
1324:
1307:
1290:
1233:
1206:
1190:
1171:
1142:
1127:
1066:
1052:
1038:
1023:
1003:
983:
969:
956:
945:
930:
916:
903:
888:
870:
844:
830:
818:
797:
759:
703:
687:
677:
658:
642:
626:
608:
579:
534:"FACT CHECK: Did Knowledge Change The Definition Of 'Definition'?"
1831:. Hundreds of other twitter users have taken the hoax as fact.
1609:
of "hobbit"? That is (to say much the same in different ways):
1250:
1138:
179:
2182:
If definitions are important in logic programming, the article
1246:
In a lengthy exercise on definition by Professor Norman Swartz
2259:
must be considered. In particular, the definition of types in
1920:
1764:
1671:
510:
15:
876:
The first sentence is essentially a dictionary definition of
793:
I rather like this one. It will need a good caption, though.
1405:
585:
I've been asked to comment on definitions in mathematics by
377:
361:
198:
178:
158:
2210:; that is, in this case, textbooks on logical programming.
1879:
Need a separate article about definitions in formal logic
695:
of living things uses definition by genus and differentia
2098:
The reasons for deleting the section are the following:
1759:
1714:
561:
1159:(subject) is a (category) that (point of difference).
786:
While searching for images of rainbows, I came across
455:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
115:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1256:The rest of the discussion is moved to my homepage
344:
149:This article has not yet received a rating on the
2130:weight to this minor subarea of computer science.
1151:(subject) is a jazz pianist (category) who won a
1118:, and the point of difference is how the subject
2152:example is not in the logic programming article.
699:This article needs a picture or two. Any ideas?
2383:High-importance philosophy of language articles
604:I hope this provides some helpful information.
1106:, and illustrated it with marketing examples:
1043:Banno, please make it permanent. Thank you, --
2033:which is worked-through by participants in a
1404:Bruce Schuman, July 29, 2013, Santa Barbara,
1385:Much appreciation, definition and distinction
865:Knowledge:Citing sources#When to cite sources
8:
1917:Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023
1827:, possibly to poke fun at the edit storm on
1707:Change: "For this reason, Locking adds ..."
1668:Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021
2348:Automatically assessed Linguistics articles
1114:The idea is that the category is something
2343:Philosophy of language task force articles
2008:
808:, maybe a "portrait" of one could be used.
401:
341:
228:
47:
1788:You can participate in the discussion at
1197:discover something for the rest of us. --
525:mentioned by multiple media organizations
770:How Children Learn the Meanings of Words
2398:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
2338:C-Class philosophy of language articles
2333:Applied Linguistics Task Force articles
2323:Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
1601:Nominal definitions vs real definitions
617:Further to this, I would like to thank
574:Gowers: Two definitions of `definition'
403:
230:
49:
19:
1820:
1717:, which changed "Locke" to "Locking".
1710:To: "For this reason, Locke adds ..."
1650:of "black swan" before one was found?
1466:surely we can find a logic-textbook.--
302:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
216:
1770:what is the definition of recession?
7:
2328:C-Class applied linguistics articles
2122:Definitions appear in many areas of
1760:what's the definition of "recession"
1514:It means diverting buying thoughts.
449:This article is within the scope of
286:This article is within the scope of
109:This article is within the scope of
2363:High-importance Philosophy articles
1242:Definition of definition criticised
989:Extensive vs. Ostensive definitions
38:It is of interest to the following
1449:Classes of intensional definitions
14:
2393:Mid-priority mathematics articles
2009:Here's a definition of definition
1813:Background note for other editors
469:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
190:Philosophy of language task force
129:Knowledge:WikiProject Linguistics
2353:WikiProject Linguistics articles
1957:
1924:
1736:
1675:
1628:of "horse" but not of "unicorn"?
514:
472:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
436:
426:
405:
308:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
273:
263:
232:
132:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
96:
86:
72:
51:
20:
1358:list of future prime ministers?
1270:) 11:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
940:I changed the link to point to
489:This article has been rated as
328:This article has been rated as
311:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
2373:High-importance logic articles
2105:. This has nothing to do here.
1411:The golden rule of definitions
970:22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
957:21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
536:. Check Your Fact. 2022-08-03.
170:Applied Linguistics Task Force
1:
2078:Definitions as logic programs
2024:19:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
1911:12:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1353:14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
1251:http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/
1207:13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
1191:03:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
984:03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
463:and see a list of open tasks.
187:This article is supported by
167:This article is supported by
123:and see a list of open tasks.
2388:C-Class mathematics articles
2318:C-Class Linguistics articles
2004:21:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
1859:USA Today fact-checking team
1660:22:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
1595:13:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
1580:10:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
1547:22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
1524:16:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1504:10:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
1482:genus–differentia definition
1380:18:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
1325:11:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
1308:00:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
1291:11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
1234:23:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
1004:00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2358:C-Class Philosophy articles
1947:to reactivate your request.
1935:has been answered. Set the
1871:18:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
1704:In the "Problems" section:
1698:to reactivate your request.
1686:has been answered. Set the
1430:Definiens & definiendum
1313:Good point (brownie point)
1249:, Simon Fraser University
804:Since the article mentions
750:Knowledge:Featured_pictures
2414:
1983:08:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
1893:02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
1754:01:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
1730:00:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
1613:Does the possibility of a
1100:definition of a definition
1075:Definition of a definition
1067:23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1053:01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1039:01:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
899:by Courant and Robbins) --
752:might suggest other ideas.
580:09:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
568:definitions in mathematics
541:Ana Faguy (25 July 2022).
334:project's importance scale
151:project's importance scale
2378:Logic task force articles
1847:14:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
1808:14:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
1782:05:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
1529:Etymology of 'Definition'
1528:
1476:22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
1406:http://originresearch.com
1402:23:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
1172:00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
1024:23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
931:23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
917:23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
904:23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
889:23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
880:. I have added a link to
871:22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
845:09:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
831:22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
819:22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
798:22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
746:has some nice animations.
693:Scientific classification
678:11:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
659:23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
643:11:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
488:
421:
385:
369:
340:
327:
258:
206:
186:
166:
148:
81:
46:
2293:09:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
2278:16:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
2251:15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
2236:13:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
2178:12:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
2145:17:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
2093:08:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
2072:09:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
1635:If the possibility of a
975:WikiProject class rating
627:18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
609:12:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
495:project's priority scale
1857:Discussed today by the
1825:is a fluid statement...
1444:19:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
1425:17:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
1330:Definitions as a choice
1213:Definition as knowledge
760:15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
726:has several apt images.
704:21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
452:WikiProject Mathematics
345:Associated task forces:
112:WikiProject Linguistics
2368:C-Class logic articles
2265:functional programming
2194:. There is nothing in
1967:"change X to Y" format
1624:Why should there be a
1155:(point of difference).
712:Portraits are common (
696:
523:This article has been
387:Philosophy of language
382:
366:
289:WikiProject Philosophy
207:This article has been
203:
183:
163:
68:Philosophy of language
28:This article is rated
1605:Why can't there be a
1141:(subject) is a large
790:by a seven year old.
691:
381:
365:
202:
182:
162:
2263:and of functions in
2208:WP:secondary sources
2031:ostensive definition
896:What is Mathematics?
777:shows a painting by
731:Ostensive definition
475:mathematics articles
135:Linguistics articles
1784:lollollollollollol
1092:point of difference
314:Philosophy articles
209:automatically rated
64:Applied Linguistics
2220:WP:primary sources
2204:WP:primary sources
1456:is already defined
944:, b/c the link to
739:Genetic definition
697:
444:Mathematics portal
383:
367:
299:general discussion
204:
184:
164:
104:Linguistics portal
34:content assessment
2200:Logic programming
2188:logic programming
2184:Logic programming
2113:Logic programming
2103:Logic programming
1951:
1950:
1702:
1701:
1490:comment added by
1339:necessarily new.
1294:
1277:comment added by
558:
557:
509:
508:
505:
504:
501:
500:
400:
399:
396:
395:
392:
391:
281:Philosophy portal
227:
226:
223:
222:
2405:
2124:computer science
2047:is exposed as a
2041:Penrose triangle
1973:if appropriate.
1961:
1960:
1942:
1938:
1928:
1927:
1921:
1903:Mathias Hoffnung
1844:
1837:
1805:
1798:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1693:
1689:
1679:
1678:
1672:
1506:
1293:
1271:
1130:(subject) is an
564:to end may 2007
550:
537:
518:
511:
477:
476:
473:
470:
467:
446:
441:
440:
430:
423:
422:
417:
409:
402:
352:
342:
316:
315:
312:
309:
306:
283:
278:
277:
276:
267:
260:
259:
254:
251:
236:
229:
218:
137:
136:
133:
130:
127:
106:
101:
100:
90:
83:
82:
77:
76:
75:
70:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
2413:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2308:
2307:
2285:Robert Kowalski
2243:Robert Kowalski
2224:WP:Verification
2170:Robert Kowalski
2085:Robert Kowalski
2080:
2014:identification
2011:
1991:
1971:reliable source
1958:
1940:
1936:
1925:
1919:
1881:
1840:
1833:
1801:
1794:
1762:
1737:
1735:
1691:
1687:
1676:
1670:
1603:
1554:
1531:
1512:
1485:
1451:
1432:
1417:189.226.211.250
1413:
1387:
1360:
1332:
1272:
1244:
1215:
1179:
1116:everybody knows
1077:
1012:
1010:Semi-protection
991:
977:
938:
857:
686:
577:Boris Tsirelson
572:Maybe see also
570:
554:
553:
540:
532:
528:
474:
471:
468:
465:
464:
442:
435:
415:
350:
330:High-importance
313:
310:
307:
304:
303:
279:
274:
272:
253:High‑importance
252:
242:
134:
131:
128:
125:
124:
102:
95:
71:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
2411:
2409:
2401:
2400:
2395:
2390:
2385:
2380:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2355:
2350:
2345:
2340:
2335:
2330:
2325:
2320:
2310:
2309:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2211:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2160:
2157:
2153:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2120:
2110:
2106:
2079:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2035:mutual process
2010:
2007:
1996:Mocapforbetter
1990:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1969:and provide a
1949:
1948:
1929:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1899:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1790:Talk:Recession
1774:105.160.91.231
1761:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1700:
1699:
1680:
1669:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1641:
1640:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1619:
1618:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1582:
1553:
1550:
1537:Any thoughts?
1530:
1527:
1511:
1508:
1450:
1447:
1436:86.164.173.122
1431:
1428:
1412:
1409:
1386:
1383:
1359:
1356:
1331:
1328:
1311:
1310:
1262:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1178:
1175:
1157:
1156:
1146:
1135:
1112:
1111:
1096:
1095:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1055:
1011:
1008:
990:
987:
981:BetacommandBot
976:
973:
937:
934:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
856:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
824:
823:
822:
821:
812:
809:
802:
801:
800:
784:
765:
753:
747:
735:
727:
721:
710:
685:
682:
681:
680:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
612:
611:
601:
600:
591:
590:
569:
566:
560:
556:
555:
552:
551:
538:
529:
522:
521:
519:
507:
506:
503:
502:
499:
498:
487:
481:
480:
478:
461:the discussion
448:
447:
431:
419:
418:
410:
398:
397:
394:
393:
390:
389:
384:
374:
373:
368:
358:
357:
355:
353:
347:
346:
338:
337:
326:
320:
319:
317:
285:
284:
268:
256:
255:
237:
225:
224:
221:
220:
205:
195:
194:
185:
175:
174:
165:
155:
154:
147:
141:
140:
138:
121:the discussion
108:
107:
91:
79:
78:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2410:
2399:
2396:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2384:
2381:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2366:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2356:
2354:
2351:
2349:
2346:
2344:
2341:
2339:
2336:
2334:
2331:
2329:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2315:
2313:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2216:
2212:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2161:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2118:
2114:
2111:
2107:
2104:
2100:
2099:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2077:
2073:
2070:
2067:
2064:
2060:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2006:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1946:
1943:parameter to
1934:
1930:
1923:
1922:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1878:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1848:
1845:
1843:
1838:
1836:
1830:
1826:
1824:
1818:
1817:Jack Posobiec
1814:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1804:
1799:
1797:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1769:
1768:User:Muboshgu
1766:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1718:
1716:
1713:That reverts
1711:
1708:
1705:
1697:
1694:parameter to
1685:
1681:
1674:
1673:
1667:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1646:Was there no
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1608:
1600:
1596:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1583:
1581:
1578:
1575:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1551:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1535:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1509:
1507:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1483:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1463:
1461:
1457:
1448:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1429:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1410:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1384:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1357:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1340:
1336:
1329:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1269:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1254:
1252:
1248:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1221:
1220:David Crystal
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1176:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1154:
1150:
1149:Bill Cunliffe
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1105:
1101:
1098:He said this
1093:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1074:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1009:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:Mountain Goat
988:
986:
985:
982:
974:
972:
971:
968:
964:
959:
958:
955:
951:
947:
943:
935:
933:
932:
929:
918:
915:
911:
907:
906:
905:
902:
898:
897:
892:
891:
890:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
866:
861:
854:
846:
843:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
829:
820:
817:
813:
810:
807:
803:
799:
796:
792:
791:
789:
788:this painting
785:
783:
780:
776:
772:
771:
767:The cover of
766:
763:
762:
761:
758:
754:
751:
748:
745:
741:
740:
736:
733:
732:
728:
725:
722:
719:
715:
711:
708:
707:
706:
705:
702:
694:
690:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:50.240.174.93
668:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
635:50.240.174.93
630:
629:
628:
625:
620:
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
607:
603:
602:
597:
593:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
578:
575:
567:
565:
563:
548:
544:
539:
535:
531:
530:
526:
520:
517:
513:
512:
496:
492:
486:
483:
482:
479:
462:
458:
454:
453:
445:
439:
434:
432:
429:
425:
424:
420:
414:
411:
408:
404:
388:
380:
376:
375:
372:
364:
360:
359:
356:
354:
349:
348:
343:
339:
335:
331:
325:
322:
321:
318:
301:
300:
295:
291:
290:
282:
271:
269:
266:
262:
261:
257:
250:
246:
241:
238:
235:
231:
214:
210:
201:
197:
196:
192:
191:
181:
177:
176:
172:
171:
161:
157:
156:
152:
146:
143:
142:
139:
122:
118:
114:
113:
105:
99:
94:
92:
89:
85:
84:
80:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2213:The article
2081:
2045:ground truth
2038:
2012:
1992:
1962:
1952:
1944:
1933:edit request
1885:VictorPorton
1882:
1841:
1834:
1822:
1812:
1802:
1795:
1772:
1763:
1741:
1722:50.53.35.207
1719:
1712:
1709:
1706:
1703:
1695:
1684:edit request
1647:
1636:
1625:
1614:
1606:
1604:
1566:
1555:
1539:RyanDanielst
1536:
1532:
1513:
1486:— Preceding
1481:
1479:
1464:
1459:
1455:
1452:
1433:
1414:
1394:Bruceschuman
1392:
1388:
1372:FactotumGeek
1370:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1315:
1312:
1273:— Preceding
1261:
1255:
1245:
1237:
1224:
1216:
1180:
1161:
1158:
1153:Grammy Award
1120:differs from
1119:
1115:
1113:
1099:
1097:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1013:
992:
978:
960:
939:
925:
910:lead section
894:
877:
858:
825:
768:
744:BĂ©zier curve
737:
729:
698:
665:
664:
653:
633:
632:
624:Geometry guy
606:Geometry guy
571:
559:
491:Mid-priority
490:
450:
416:Mid‑priority
329:
297:
287:
188:
168:
110:
40:WikiProjects
2261:type theory
2196:Horn clause
2192:Horn clause
2109:programming
2069:| contribs)
2063:Ancheta Wis
2053:perspective
2043:, in which
1592:| contribs)
1586:Ancheta Wis
1577:| contribs)
1571:Ancheta Wis
1458:, that is:
1199:Ancheta Wis
1045:Ancheta Wis
718:Mathematics
466:Mathematics
457:mathematics
413:Mathematics
126:Linguistics
117:linguistics
59:Linguistics
2312:Categories
2215:Definition
2049:projection
2029:And in an
1937:|answered=
1823:definition
1688:|answered=
1510:Convention
1317:Genezistan
1279:Genezistan
1264:Genezistan
1258:Genezistan
1226:Genezistan
1183:Cesiumfrog
1164:Tomwsulcer
963:1 (number)
882:Wiktionary
878:definition
860:user:BMF81
775:Paul Bloom
724:Dictionary
714:Philosophy
709:Good idea.
305:Philosophy
294:philosophy
240:Philosophy
219:parameter.
2163:programs.
1963:Not done:
1829:Recession
1746:RudolfRed
1715:this edit
1652:Errantius
1460:for which
1102:was from
562:Archive 1
547:USA Today
2270:D.Lazard
2257:WP:UNDUE
2228:D.Lazard
2137:D.Lazard
2128:WP:UNDUE
2117:WP:UNDUE
1975:Cannolis
1835:Schazjmd
1796:Schazjmd
1648:quid rei
1637:quid rei
1626:quid rei
1615:quid rei
1607:quid rei
1552:Antonyms
1516:Rnbmbaml
1500:contribs
1492:Kaelltee
1488:unsigned
1468:TheseusX
1287:contribs
1275:unsigned
1177:negative
1104:Socrates
1088:category
249:Language
1563:sequent
1345:Rbakels
1084:Subject
942:Oneness
806:hobbits
493:on the
332:on the
30:C-class
1989:AvaSci
1842:(talk)
1803:(talk)
1132:animal
840:Nice.
779:Titian
217:|auto=
36:scale.
2066:(talk
2057:model
2055:, or
2051:, or
1941:|ans=
1931:This
1692:|ans=
1682:This
1589:(talk
1574:(talk
1569:" --
1300:Hpvpp
1143:plant
1128:horse
1090:that
1086:is a
1059:Velho
1031:Banno
1016:Banno
950:Banno
946:Unity
936:Unity
928:Banno
868:Banno
842:Banno
828:Banno
795:Banno
701:Banno
684:Image
666:@''''
656:Banno
596:group
371:Logic
245:Logic
211:by a
2289:talk
2274:talk
2247:talk
2232:talk
2198:and
2174:talk
2141:talk
2089:talk
2039:See
2020:talk
2000:talk
1979:talk
1907:talk
1889:talk
1867:talk
1778:talk
1750:talk
1742:Done
1726:talk
1656:talk
1561:The
1543:talk
1520:talk
1496:talk
1472:talk
1440:talk
1421:talk
1398:talk
1376:talk
1349:talk
1321:talk
1304:talk
1283:talk
1268:talk
1230:talk
1203:talk
1187:talk
1168:talk
1139:tree
1063:talk
1049:talk
1035:talk
1020:talk
1000:talk
914:Jtir
908:The
901:Jtir
886:Jtir
884:. --
816:Jtir
757:Jtir
674:talk
639:talk
619:Jtir
587:Jtir
324:High
2061:--
2016:GPC
1939:or
1863:scs
1861:. —
1765:lol
1690:or
1484:.
967:Rog
965:.--
954:Rog
773:by
485:Mid
213:bot
145:???
2314::
2291:)
2276:)
2249:)
2234:)
2176:)
2143:)
2091:)
2022:)
2002:)
1981:)
1945:no
1909:)
1891:)
1869:)
1821:A
1815::
1792:.
1780:)
1752:)
1728:)
1720:--
1696:no
1658:)
1545:)
1522:)
1502:)
1498:•
1474:)
1442:)
1423:)
1400:)
1378:)
1351:)
1323:)
1306:)
1289:)
1285:•
1232:)
1222:.
1205:)
1189:)
1170:)
1137:A
1126:A
1065:)
1051:)
1037:)
1022:)
1006:)
1002:)
814:--
755:--
720:).
716:,
676:)
641:)
545:.
351:/
247:/
243::
66:/
62::
2287:(
2272:(
2245:(
2230:(
2172:(
2139:(
2119:.
2087:(
2059:.
2018:(
1998:(
1977:(
1905:(
1887:(
1865:(
1776:(
1748:(
1724:(
1654:(
1541:(
1518:(
1494:(
1470:(
1438:(
1419:(
1396:(
1374:(
1347:(
1319:(
1302:(
1281:(
1266:(
1228:(
1201:(
1185:(
1166:(
1094:.
1061:(
1047:(
1033:(
1018:(
998:(
781:.
672:(
637:(
631:'
589:.
549:.
527::
497:.
336:.
193:.
173:.
153:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
