232:
in this article. It really looks to me as though all the "references" and links for this article were just formed on the basis of indiscriminately grabbing anything which used the expression "self-reference" or any variation of it, irrespective of whether it referred to the concept which this article purports to be about. Incidentally, it took me a little while to find the abstract to the article, as
223:
The article is virtually content-free, and what little content it has is completely meaningless. There was an "example" which was not, in fact, an example of what was defined in the article. There were online "references" and "see also" links which either did not exist or referred to other concepts,
544:
Rirunmot - two things are either the same or they are different. If you do not agree that the definition in the reference is different from the definition in the article then you must think that the two definitions are the same - in which case you are simply wrong. Anyway, I am tired of your games.
231:
A mention of an article by
Marchal Bruno. Has anyone seen a copy of this? If so is it any more relevant than the useless online "references"? Judging from the abstract I managed to find it is not relevant. It refers to Cantor's diagonalization process, but there is nothing about the concept defined
117:
contains a short paragraph about self-referential functions, but the definition it gives is entirely different from the definition in the article, and it does not mention Cantor's diagonal argument at all. These references do not support the contents of the article and do nothing to address my
474:
Gandalf61 - You do not have to worry about being serious or not, just try to understand WP standards: If a notion is present in reliable, verifiable and independent sources , then it is NOTABLE regardless you like it or not. If you admit that, you won't have ; as you mentioned above:
224:
albeit in some cases with a similar name. (E.g. anything which uses the expression "self reference" to mean something completely different from the meaning defined in the article is irrelevant.) These have now been deleted, and all that is left is:
286:. The definition given in the reference is, as you agree, different from the definition in the article, so the reference does not meet this purpose. It is like including a reference to a paper about insects in an article on computer bugs.
281:
Rirunmot - I am still finding it difficult to tell whether you are being serious. Obviously, we need to have a reference that establishes that the term "self-referential function" is used in a reliable source
262:; it doesn't give neither the same definition of the article nor an opposite one. It is inserted as a support to NOTABILITY. So removing this reliable and verifiable reference because it
200:
If we take seriously the definition "a self-referential function is a function that applies to itself", that is, a function that is an element of its own domain (treating a function as in
244:
I invite anyone who has seen the whole article to explain here how it relates to "a function that applies to itself", and if no such explanation is forthcoming the reference must go.
228:
Two different definitions, "function that refers to itself" and "function that applies to itself", which are not the same, and neither of which seems to have any useful meaning, and
319:
289:
Moreover, we can see that the definition in the article "A self-referential function is a function that applies to itself" is nonsense by considering the function
25:
The definition "A self-referential function is a function that applies to itself" is hopeless. What does it mean ? How does any function "apply to itself" ??
107:
The Unique Non Self-Referential q-Canonical
Distribution and the Physical Temperature Derived from the Maximum Entropy Principle in Tsallis Statistics
518:
In order not to be baffled, see the comment of
Gandalf61 above, you will instantaneously and immediately see that I am responding to his comment!
146:. In addition, I see "translated from french wikipedia" in the edit summary of 12:08, 18 March 2009. May I see the corresponding French article?
28:
The reference that, I assume, is intended to demonstrate the usage and notability of the term gives a "Not found" error when I try to access it.
165:
76:
Unless someone can fix the definition and the example and provide some useful sources, I will seriously consider taking this article to AfD.
113:- beyond containing the term "self-referential", it has no connection at all with the contents of this article. Your second reference
509:
I think most people reading your sentences would be baffled as to what you're talking about. Can you explain yourself more clearly?
450:)" is a kind of equation, also having no solutions, also by that axiom. This is what I had in mind above, at 14:33, 25 June 2009.
161:
32:
351:
A bit off-topic, but still: the domain cannot be "all functions", since this is not a set (but only a class).
240:
the title of the journal were garbled, which does not suggest a great deal of care in preparing references.
249:
201:
438:. In fact, this equation has no solutions (as well as the former one), which is an implication of the
510:
381:) = 0 as before ? I still think it is clear that the definition proposed in the article is nonsense.
292:
169:
487:
The definition given in the reference is, as you agree, different from the definition in the article
558:
439:
386:
342:
205:
123:
90:
I added a very consistent reference where the answers to the four concerns ( above) are available
81:
523:
498:
271:
95:
105:
Rirunmot - I find it difficult to tell whether you are being serious here. Your first reference
245:
455:
356:
213:
151:
554:
550:
546:
382:
338:
182:
I removed the text about Cantor's function. There is no self-reference in that. â Carl
143:
119:
77:
69:
562:
527:
513:
502:
459:
390:
360:
346:
275:
253:
217:
194:
172:
155:
127:
99:
85:
519:
494:
267:
189:
91:
451:
352:
209:
147:
483:
it doesn't give neither the same definition of the article nor an opposite one
208:
that such monsters do not exist. But we'd better treat all that as a joke.
43:
is not defined in terms of itself; it is defined in terms of the functions
266:
is nonsense. At least, one may not remove it until a consensus is reached
185:
489:..any one can read my sentence and understand that I do not agree that
110:
325:
applies to itself, as it is itself a function (indeed, we know that
35:
that is meant to illustrate a self-referential function is clearly
491:
The definition is different from the definition in the article
481:
Now, about the given reference, you can see that I mentioned :
264:
gives is entirely different from the definition in the article
545:
There is no useful content in this article, so I have been
52:. And the whole point of the argument is to show that
295:
109:
is not at the link you gave, but I found an abstract
395:
Of course, nonsense. I just give another reason why.
313:
202:Function (mathematics)#Set-theoretical definitions
284:with the meaning attributed to it in the article
8:
260:classification of self-referential functions
21:I have several problems with this article:
294:
68:We already have a much better article at
164:(written by the same user). Someone has
115:Evolving Algebras and Partial Evaluation
321:whose domain is all functions. Clearly
258:The re-established reference gives the
333:) = 0), but it is absurd to describe
7:
549:and replaced it with a redirect to
337:as a "self-referential" function.
477:several problems with this article
204:, then it follows easily from the
14:
314:{\displaystyle f:x\rightarrow 0}
39:self-referential ! The function
305:
162:fr:Fonction auto-référentielle
1:
365:Okay, perhaps the domain of
583:
422:= {5}" is a definition of
33:Cantor's diagonal argument
17:Problems with this article
563:09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
528:18:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
514:18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
503:15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
460:17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
391:14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
361:14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
347:09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
276:20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
254:16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
236:the title of the article
218:14:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
195:12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
173:12:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
168:the same problems there.
156:10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
128:18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
100:16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
86:15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
402:= 5" is a definition of
414:+5" is an equation for
315:
434:}" is an equation on
369:can just be the set {
316:
485:. you are saying :
293:
440:axiom of regularity
206:axiom of regularity
56:is not in the set {
442:. And similarly, "
311:
193:
31:The example from
574:
320:
318:
317:
312:
183:
582:
581:
577:
576:
575:
573:
572:
571:
452:Boris Tsirelson
353:Boris Tsirelson
291:
290:
210:Boris Tsirelson
148:Boris Tsirelson
64:
51:
19:
12:
11:
5:
580:
578:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
551:self-reference
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
516:
479:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
396:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
287:
242:
241:
229:
221:
220:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
160:That would be
136:
133:
131:
130:
74:
73:
70:self-reference
66:
60:
47:
29:
26:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
579:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
529:
525:
521:
517:
515:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
478:
473:
472:
471:
470:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
418:. Likewise, "
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
308:
302:
299:
296:
288:
285:
280:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
255:
251:
247:
239:
235:
230:
227:
226:
225:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
191:
187:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
158:
157:
153:
149:
145:
142:I agree with
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
129:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
97:
93:
88:
87:
83:
79:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
27:
24:
23:
22:
16:
490:
486:
482:
476:
447:
443:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
378:
374:
370:
366:
334:
330:
326:
322:
283:
263:
259:
257:
246:JamesBWatson
243:
237:
233:
222:
181:
135:
132:
114:
106:
89:
75:
61:
57:
53:
48:
44:
40:
36:
20:
166:pointed out
511:Algebraist
170:Algebraist
118:concerns.
555:Gandalf61
446:â domain(
383:Gandalf61
339:Gandalf61
144:Gandalf61
120:Gandalf61
78:Gandalf61
520:Rirunmot
495:Rirunmot
373:}, with
268:Rirunmot
92:Rirunmot
547:WP:BOLD
426:, but "
406:, but "
559:talk
524:talk
499:talk
456:talk
387:talk
357:talk
343:talk
272:talk
250:talk
234:both
214:talk
190:talk
152:talk
124:talk
111:here
96:talk
82:talk
430:= {
238:and
186:CBM
37:not
561:)
553:.
526:)
501:)
493:.
458:)
410:=
389:)
359:)
345:)
306:â
274:)
252:)
216:)
188:·
154:)
126:)
98:)
84:)
65:}.
557:(
522:(
497:(
454:(
448:f
444:f
436:f
432:f
428:f
424:f
420:f
416:a
412:a
408:a
404:a
400:a
398:"
385:(
379:f
377:(
375:f
371:f
367:f
355:(
341:(
335:f
331:f
329:(
327:f
323:f
309:0
303:x
300::
297:f
270:(
248:(
212:(
192:)
184:(
150:(
122:(
94:(
80:(
72:.
62:k
58:f
54:g
49:k
45:f
41:g
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.