Talk:Ling Tong

Dynasty Warriors
I cleaned up the Dynasty Warriors area a bit and gave it it's own subheading, in keeping with other profiles and, if nothing else, to tidy it up. --Emperor Wu 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i have made an ajustment to the dynasty warriors bit,made it more desciptive and added about what he is like and what his story in the game is.is it me or he extremely under valued by people who havent read the book or biography's.  --samlevi 15:57 3 august 2006

Downplayed in the novel
I have been doing a research on the Eastern Wu, and accidentally I discovered that this guy is really ignored by the novel, so I just added some unmentioned detail into the article. By the way, is there anyone who can do the Japanese version of his article? EkmanLi (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading the SGZ & ZZTJ recently, and will write for a few more downplayed persons in the future (hopefully).EkmanLi (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When did Ling Tong die
A few of my friends told me I made a mistake on Ling's death year after they read the article because they followed SGZ. They were wrong, okay, this is what I have to clarify here: first, I intentionally left his death year to be "237 OR 217" because I never throw out anything in the original SGZ. However, later researches have suggested Chen Shou was the one who made a typo on Ling's death year, and I'm sure my frds, as well as most other people, did not really check what I gave out in the ref section. It's understandable most people won't notice details such as this topic, but it's not hard to purchase a book when I already listed its ISBN! Interested ppl can find interesting facts in the following books: EkmanLi (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Lu Bi (1982). Explanatory Commentary to the Records of the Three Kingdoms. 中華書局. ISBN 7101010199.
 * 2) Liang Zhangju; ed. Yang Yaokun (2000). Circumstantial Evidence on the Records of the Three Kingdoms. 中華書局. ISBN 7211034904.

A brief discussion on numbers
"A number is a mathematical object used to count, measure and also label. " -- Wikipedia's definition of "number".

There's an edit on the number of troops Ling Tong killed, and I think it's worthwhile to point out an interesting point that Chen Shou gave the highest kill-count in Ling's bio. But there's a different opinion on the nature of the edit. Is it an original research? My understanding is Chen Shou had already explicitly "measured and also labeled" (provided wiki's definition on "number" is true as an axiom). As an engineer, I really can't perceive my edit as an "original research". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * How does the line you quoted from Volume 55 of the Sanguozhi say anything about Ling Tong's kill count in comparison with those of other generals?
 * 統復還戰，左右盡死，身亦被創，所殺數十人，度權已免，乃還. directly translates to: "(Ling) Tong returned to battle, all his men were killed, his body also sustained injuries, he killed some tens of persons, when he assessed that (Sun) Quan had gotten out of danger, he then retreated."
 * Where are the statistics that Chen Shou provided about Guan Yu and Dian Wei's kill counts? You have to cite them. Anyway, even if you quote the relevant lines from Guan Yu and Dian Wei's biographies, you are still extracting different parts of the Sanguozhi and putting them together to derive your conclusion that Ling Tong has the highest kill count. That is WP:SYNTH. LDS  contact me 02:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That's because we don't understand "numbers" in the same manner... When Chen Shou used numbers, it's an automatic comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me about your understanding of "numbers" in the Sanguozhi. Why is it that "When Chen Shou used numbers, it's an automatic comparison."? LDS  contact me 02:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, let's clarify a bit. The "conclusion" isn't mine but Chen Shou's, because I didn't do the measurement, comparison and label at the first place. The word statics didn't exist at Chen Shou's time, but we should use it because it's the right word for morden human readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC) When an author (science field or not) chooses to use numbers, he does a few things at the same time-- comparison, measurement, label.
 * So where in the Sanguozhi does Chen Shou say anything to the effect of "Having compared the kill counts of Ling Tong, Guan Yu, Dian Wei, ..., I conclude that Ling Tong had the highest kill count among all the generals of that era." LDS  contact me 03:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please quote the line that says so. It would be really interesting if he did make such an explicit comparison. LDS  contact me 03:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

...Do you understand the conclusion is provided by Chen Shou (the author) already? When an author (science field or not) chooses to use numbers, he does a few things at the same time-- comparison, measurement, label. This is not a data mining class, but let me try to give you an example. I have 3 tickets to sell: Ticket A: $100 Ticket B: $50 Ticket C: $10 Now, the conclusion that "ticket A is the most expensive" is already given out. An outside reader saying "Wow, ticket A is the most expensive, I should have published a research based on my findings" wouldn't get much credit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with . The most problematic sentence is this one:

"Statistically, Ling Tong was also the general who single-handedly killed most enemy troops during the era."


 * Who said this? Chen Shou certainly didn't. You can provide numbers all you want but you are putting words into Chen Shou's mouth when you say Ling Tong personally killed the most people personally. How does comparing him with Guan Yu or Dian Wei even relevant? Have you read the Records of the Three Kingdoms in its entirety and come to the conclusion that there's no one else whose "kill count" is more than Ling Tong's? Let's say you did, then what about the Hou Han Shu? What about archeological records? Is there a study somewhere tallying each officer's kill count? Where does this claim originate? _dk (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't put words into anyone's mouth, you put words into mine. I edited an article on wiki, I didn't say "Chen Shou said that statement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Number theory dictates Chen Shou had done the comparison, measurement and label, I did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

When you mentioned "archeological records" and other books, I agree with your point. But that's exactly why I used the words "statically"-- Chen Shou provided certain numbers, and what we can say for sure, under common knowledge (number theory is covered in USA high school), is that Ling has highest kill-count in a sample population according to Chen Shou. I can't say anything about archeological records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So where is Chen Shou's conclusion? Please quote the relevant line(s) from the Sanguozhi as required under WP:CITE. Surely, you can be as certain that you can find the line(s) in the Sanguozhi as you seem to be so certain in your belief that Chen Shou did make such a comparison. :) LDS  contact me 03:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not getting the idea, which is actually illustrated above... Statistic conclusion need not be stated in a daily-human-speaking-language form, because math is itself a language. I pointed out when Chen chose to give out different numbers during his recording of something, if the sets of numbers are finite, then there must already has a conclusion.

Alright, I think we need to start explaining things high-school-style. For example,

I say I now have a data-pool consisting of only 3 tickets: Ticket A: $100 Ticket B: $50 Ticket C: $10 The statement "Statistically ticket A is the most expensive" is always scientifically true and DO NOT NEED additional quotation, because that's a common knowledge (statistic is taught in high-school), and all data comes from a data sample given out by a reliable source. In contrast, if I say "ticket A is the most expensive", the statement may not always be scientifically true, because the statement doesn't have the word "Statistically"-- (this word makes certain a source gave out the sample, and the numbers are finite.) Now, the statement can be challenged, because the statement would then be not specific on the set of data, and a statement can either be true or false but not both (check propositional logic for more common knowledge stuff). And when a logician challenges the statement, he may NEED quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk statistics, fine. You have given three data points so far, which is too few to make a conclusion like that. On whose authority do you rest on to say that "Yes, the whole Records has been scoured and a reliable set of data points have been generated, thus we can confidently conclude Ling Tong has personally killed the most people", because we cannot take your word alone (since that is WP:OR). And that is not withstanding the potential (and in my view, probable) use of 數十人 as a literal cliche instead of a strict measure. _dk (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not like that, it doesn't matter how many data points as long as it's greater than one. if I say "ticket A is the most expensive", the statement may not always be scientifically true, because the statement doesn't have the word "Statistically"-- (this word makes certain a source gave out the sample, and the numbers are finite.) Now the statement can be challenged, because the statement would then be not specific on the set of data, and a statement can either be true or false but not both (check propositional logic for more common knowledge stuff). And when a logician challenges the statement, he may NEED quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk • contribs)


 * That is straight up sophistry. You are saying Ling Tong killed the most people because you only compared him to Guan Yu and Dian Wei. If the pool of data is just three points, yes, you can say Ling Tong has killed more than the other two and hence he is the bloodiest killer among the three. But that is a stupid statistic. No one cares if he "statistically" killed more than two other blokes you randomly chose. And you are specifically saying he "killed most enemy troops during the era" which needs way more data points than Guan Yu and Dian Wei. This theatre sells way more tickets than A B and C. _dk (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. I didn't intent to compare Ling's kill count to anyone. That's only an illustration that the numbers of kill-count record is greater than one. The statement "Statiscally Ling has highest kill-count in the set of data given out by Chen Shou..." means Chen gave out a set of data (many numbers within it, each serves as an element), not restricted to only 3 numbers. The use of the word "likewise" is to indicate there are other records of numbers. And if you or anyone iterate through the set of data, you find Ling's number is the highest. That's all. Check out words like "iterate, statement, set, element", you will get the idea why some statements must be scientifically true, and why some opinions can be opened to discussion. There're no "stupid" statistic by the way... there might be statistic that's not very useful. But Chen Shou did spend some effort recording kill count when the incident is note-worthy, so iterate through his data.
 * You claim Chen Shou has given out a set of data. Okay, where is this data? How did you arrive at this set of data? What is your methodology? Bear in mind Chen Shou's work contains 65 volumes and about 360,000 Chinese characters, despite you trivally suggesting one can simply "iterate" through his work. _dk (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

ANY programming language can do iteration (as I know). This is a friendly discussion I suppose? So, if you know of a programming language that doesn't, let me know (caz I'm not entirely certian of this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Great. We can add your conclusion to the article once you get your research published in a respectable journal, or at a minimum a decent media outlet. -Zanhe (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyone can write a for loop but even Google would have trouble writing a program that understands Classical Chinese written 1800 years ago and spits out statistical data. You (the IP) have repeatedly evaded the question on how you generated the data, so I must assume you don't have it, and there really is no point continuing this discussion. _dk (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you do it wrong. Just use it to count the symbol will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC) We shouldn't add our original research or data on wiki. All data used are provided by Chen Shou, please go back to Chen Shou's work, and not steal someone's else work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.145.221 (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC) I'm not saying I know more than you do, and I never said you did bad on something, but it's clear that there are some statement construct that must be true, and I used it. The other thing is about data, and I am not a data generator, I'm a reader; if you need data, it's already there, you can perceive the book "ROTK" as a database.73.92.145.221 (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC) As long as this question remains unanswered, this discussion is pointless. I am just wasting my time here trying to get my point across to you that what you are doing is essentially WP:SYNTH of information that you claim to be in the Sanguozhi but have yet to provide any evidence of its existence. LDS contact me 04:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's stop sidetracking to statistics and other things, and go back to the main issue: "Where in the Sanguozhi did Chen Shou make an explicit comparison of the kill counts of Ling Tong and other generals?"

Hey, you should have carefully read my previous discussion posts. Your question is previously answered. Is number theory an accepted axiom? If it is, then Chen Shou had already explicitly compared, measured and also labeled a certain things. He is not required to say it in Chinese language to prove a math statement. And number theory is an accepted axiom. The relationship between numbers are clear. Math is a language on its own, as long as it's within high-school knowledge body, there is no need for a quotation. On the other side, if you found archeological evidence (or even whatever books) against Chen Shou's work, quote it and bring it here.73.92.145.221 (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC) I've spent some time trying to get you to look up some basic axioms to understand why some statement constructs must be true and which knowledge body is included as common knowledge so they don't need quotation, but you don't seem very happy to discuss the issue in a constructive way, if that's because of me, please let me know how can I do better.73.92.145.221 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC) And, again, the "conclusion" isn't mine but Chen Shou's, because I didn't do the measurement, comparison and label at the first place. There's NO NEW conclusion generated, and this is not a SYNTH issue. Anyone understand number theory should be able to tell the axiom had concluded a certain relationships between numbers, we are not adding things on top of what the axiom had already told us.73.92.145.221 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)