Talk:Matter (chemistry): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Boris Tsirelson
(→‎Thing: new section)
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
(→‎Thing: responding to Boris)
Line 6: Line 6:


As for me, the "thing" section is a too long digression from chemistry. Surely the natural language cannot support a "mathematics-like" tree of definitions (see for instance [[Theory (mathematics)#Defined or undefined]]), but this is not a matter of "Matter"... [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
As for me, the "thing" section is a too long digression from chemistry. Surely the natural language cannot support a "mathematics-like" tree of definitions (see for instance [[Theory (mathematics)#Defined or undefined]]), but this is not a matter of "Matter"... [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:Hi, Boris. Terrific article you directed me to.  I keyed on:
:"In the axiomatic approach, notions are a tower of defined notions, grounded on the basis of more fundamental notions called undefined primitives. If all defined notions are forgotten they surely can be restored from the undefined primitives. The undefined primitives are sparse and simple, not to be forgotten...The lack of definition of a primitive notion does not mean lack of any information about this notion. Axioms provide such information, to be used in proofs. Informal (intuitive) understanding of a primitive notion is communicated in a natural language. This information cannot be used in proofs, but is instrumental when guessing what to prove, how to prove, how to apply proved theorems and, last but not least, what to postulate by axioms."
:As I see it, semantic and the undefined primitives correspond quite well. And, yes, natural language it appears can support a "tree of definitions", grounded on about 60 semantic primitives.  It would be interesting to learn about the cognitive origins of mathematical axioms and semantic primes.  See [[Semantic primes]], especially the references cited.  The semanticists cited give many examples of words defined solely in terms of the semantic primitives.
:As for the 'Thing' section, I'm struck by how commonly chemists use 'thing' in defining matter, always taking 'thing' as an undefined primitive. I feel the section is not so much a digression from chemistry as laying a foundation for understanding how chemists perhaps non-consciously define matter, the central concern of chemistry.  I will give this more thought, in view of your calling my attention to the undefined primitives of mathematics.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 00:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:36, 13 November 2010

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Addendum [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  In general chemistry, from the perspective of Newtonian mechanics, anything that occupies space and has mass. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Chemistry and Physics [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

Start of new article

Beginning an article on 'matter', from a general chemistry point of view. Anthony.Sebastian 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing

As for me, the "thing" section is a too long digression from chemistry. Surely the natural language cannot support a "mathematics-like" tree of definitions (see for instance Theory (mathematics)#Defined or undefined), but this is not a matter of "Matter"... Boris Tsirelson 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Boris. Terrific article you directed me to. I keyed on:
"In the axiomatic approach, notions are a tower of defined notions, grounded on the basis of more fundamental notions called undefined primitives. If all defined notions are forgotten they surely can be restored from the undefined primitives. The undefined primitives are sparse and simple, not to be forgotten...The lack of definition of a primitive notion does not mean lack of any information about this notion. Axioms provide such information, to be used in proofs. Informal (intuitive) understanding of a primitive notion is communicated in a natural language. This information cannot be used in proofs, but is instrumental when guessing what to prove, how to prove, how to apply proved theorems and, last but not least, what to postulate by axioms."
As I see it, semantic and the undefined primitives correspond quite well. And, yes, natural language it appears can support a "tree of definitions", grounded on about 60 semantic primitives. It would be interesting to learn about the cognitive origins of mathematical axioms and semantic primes. See Semantic primes, especially the references cited. The semanticists cited give many examples of words defined solely in terms of the semantic primitives.
As for the 'Thing' section, I'm struck by how commonly chemists use 'thing' in defining matter, always taking 'thing' as an undefined primitive. I feel the section is not so much a digression from chemistry as laying a foundation for understanding how chemists perhaps non-consciously define matter, the central concern of chemistry. I will give this more thought, in view of your calling my attention to the undefined primitives of mathematics. Anthony.Sebastian 00:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Matter_(chemistry)&oldid=717210"