Talk:Extension (semantics)

'the extension of a concept, idea, or sign consists of the things to which it applies, in contrast with its comprehension or intension, which consists very roughly of the ideas, properties, or corresponding signs that are implied or suggested by the concept in question.'

Well, one may see, intuitively, how properties are generalizations, and instances ('the things to which it applies') are specializations.

So, consider 'this apple', and 'plant'. Then, 'this apple' is in the extension of 'plant'. And then, 'plant' is in the intension of 'this apple'.

“Extension” (or, the things to which it applies) and “intension” (properties) is a dual relation among concepts. Or, again, the extension is the exemplars. The intension, is the features.

And, consider: do we get instances ﬁrst, then generalize properties from them? Or, do we get properties first, then determine instances according to them? Like the 'chicken-and-egg' question. Extension and intension are two opposite directions of a link. And, are developed together, are symmetric.

And, consider this. DanLanglois (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment
This article is not structured well because: To improve the article it is possible to provide separate sections about various extension types, such as extension of a noun phrase, extension of predicates, extension of a sentence, etc., and give more explanations and examples, including negative data. To clear the structure one can delete the ‘General semantics’ and to remove the given information to the lead section. Providing links to synonyms of ‘extension’ (denotation, reference) will contribute to better understanding of the term. The language is neutral and its style is appropriate for Wikipedia. KaterynaSto (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * its lead section contains details and examples which can be discussed in other sections whereas it just needs to provide summary of the article’s points;
 * though the content is arranged by theme, it contains two paragraphs which are not relevant for the article at all (extension in mathematics and computer science);
 * it lacks footnotes and has no list of reliable sources.