User talk:MannertB

To get a better understanding of the significance of this definition/concept go to Insights into Reasoning and Human Communication

mbabele@rcn.com

Your edit in line (geometry)
Your edit in line (geometry) has been reverted as it does not follows the rules of Wp:Original research. Moreover, your assertion that all the definitions of a line are circular in essence is wrong. It is true for Euclid's definition cited above in the article, but not for any modern definition. For example, the definition as the solutions of a linear equation does not involves implicitly any line, but only the definition of the set of the pairs of real numbers. What can not been proved is that the mathematical definition of a line corresponds to the idea of a line that you have in mind. In other words one has to distinguish the formal definition of a line (or of a number) from the mind representation that everybody has. That is, in fact the main difficulty of mathematics: The verification of a proof relies on a formal reasoning, which has to be independent of any mind representation, while finding and understanding it relies on a mind representation, which may be difficult to construct for non elementary mathematical objects (for example non Euclidean spaces of spaces of higher dimension). D.Lazard (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, MannertB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! D.Lazard (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Discussion with Daniel Lazard
David, I am an 82 old newbie to Wikipedia. The Wiki mode of communication I find intriguing because it provides an opportunity to discuss concepts with individuals with depth in my areas of interest. My interest specifically is the effects of Information Theory on understanding reasoning and human communication. It stems from Ross Ashby's Introduction to Cybernetics. (Ashby's effort, in turn is a clarification of Shannon's Information Theory. For example he points out that to prevent confusion we must recognize communication as transmission of variety not information. That is something that is a bit difficult to grasp) Over the years I have noticed that views often differ not from the credibility of a hypotheses but from the problems of its communication. I suggest that this may be the case in the two posts of mine that you reverted. The first was my assertion that all definitions of a straight line are circular. I should have stated that all definitions relating to a straight line that one could visualize, the straight line that plays a significant role in physics, are circular. Your statement "What can not be proved is that the mathematical definition of a line corresponds to the idea of a line that you have in mind" is exactly what I am trying to communicate. Few understand its significance. For example, we think that light travels in a straight line, not a "geometrically proved" straight line but a physically straight line. Not only do we need a label to separate the two types of straight lines but a way to determine whether light in space travels along the same straight line we see in our macro world. The second item that you reverted was a broad definition of pattern. I believe I can show that what is defined there is the atom of human communication. That item was reverted because it appeared as “original research”. I have reread the definition of original research numerous times. The objective of that guideline is to create credibility, obviously very worthwhile. However credibility stems from two areas, first what we label as “truth” and second, as mentioned above, the communication of that information in such a way that the recipient receives “truth”. Our language instills a false sense of credibility and simplicity that is harmful to the latter. That definition of pattern was a first step toward providing some vocabulary that will make it possible to explain that problem. To prevent confusion I am going to refer to it in the future as cognitive pattern.

My interest in Wikipedia stems from finding a way to explain the mechanics of human communication clearly enough that the recipient will receive "truth". It is the feedback from being reverted that turns out to be valuable in improving my ability to communicate these concepts.

Thanks for your help. Interested in your comments

Bruce Abele (MannertL) mbabele@rcn.com


 * Dear Bruce,


 * Please do not edit my user talk. If you want to talk to someone, please use his talk page. For continuing this discussion, it suffices to answer in your own talk page, I am watching :it.


 * Here is my answer:


 * First, I am not David, but Daniel. I am younger than you, only 70.


 * You say "The Wiki mode of communication ..." Wikipedia is not such a thing. You should read What Wikipedia is not, especially Section 2.2.


 * Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that its content should have a neutral point of view ( see wp:NPOV) and be supported by reliable sources (see wp:sources). What Wikipedia calls "original research" is everything which is not supported by such sources, like, in your case, personal thought. To be acceptable in Wikipedia your thought should have been published in referred publications.


 * About "line". The relationship between the mathematical notion and its mind representation has been sketched with the citation of Euclid and the fact that such a definition is not operational. To say more would have sense only in a philosophical article about the relationship between mathematics, nature and human mind representation. I doubt that anybody is able to write such a paper in a way which may be accepted by Wikipedian community.


 * About Pattern: The page is presently a bad one, as tagged at the beginning. Your "broader definition" is not convenient, as it is far to cover all the meanings of "pattern". Thus it should not inserted, in any case, before the lead. It could be possibly to create a section or an article "pattern in psychology", but I do not know if there is a sufficient sourced material for such a section.


 * Sincerely
 * D.Lazard (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Daniel,

I apologize both for the name change and for editing your talk page. There was a communication problem: I received a MediaWiki Mail: "To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:D.Lazard"  I still do not understand how you get notified if I post a comment on my talk page. It seems as if I would be talking to myself.

I found the following statement of yours most interesting: "To say more would have sense only in a philosophical article about the relationship between mathematics, nature and human mind representation. I doubt that anybody is able to write such a paper in a way which may be accepted by Wikipedia community."

It is just that relationship in a much broader sense that I am attempting to communicate. There is a physical explanation of that relationship.

In 1957 W Ross Ashby produced a work that introduced the world to a "math" he called cybernetics. (Since 1957 the meaning of cybernetics has changed significantly; I suggest a better term in today's world is informational mechanics) Informational mechanics is similar to geometry except that instead of dealing with a world of shapes it deals with a world of change. Because it has no axioms (only the recognition of "difference") and the vocabulary is carefully developed it is a math with unusual rigor.

A significant part of informational mechanics deals with the mechanics of communication (a clarification of Shannon's work) be it chemical, electronic or human. It is that part of cybernetics that clarifies “the relationship between math, nature and human mind representation” and shows that there is a clear difference between words (and/or mathematical definitions) and the patterns (my broad definition) they represent. (You can see why the first thing I attempted was a broad definition of pattern)

Understanding these concepts and language requires considerable self-discipline as our everyday language is both inadequate and misleading. I rather doubt that those concepts can be explained simply. You perhaps are correct that the Wiki community is not an appropriate forum not because of the lack of rigor but because few have the patience to stick with the necessary developed and lengthy explanation. My comments about straight line were an attempt to tweak interest in this general direction, enough so possibly a few individuals might be motivated to go through the really difficult process of understanding Informational mechanics. It is a fascinating subject.

Ashby's book is available online for free at http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf

BTW: I have been reading Jimmy Wales discussion on credibility along with his interest and concerns about the support of published sources. We have had approximately 200 articles written about an entirely independent project http://www.ussgrunion.com/ in which I am a principal. For almost all I was the primary source yet almost all contained errors. I think it illustrates that publication per se does not establish credibility.

Also sort of interesting my pdf document at http://www.999info.net/Insights.4.pdf is a introduction to the conceptual understanding of credibility. It probably won't make it to Wikipedia because of credibility.

Again I appreciate your help. You cannot change behavior if you do not understand it.

Bruce Abele mbabele@rcn.com


 * Bruce,


 * I am not willing to spent time on discussing on such a foundation of Science.


 * Here are some hints on how to use Wikipedia:


 * On the top of your screen, you have a button "my watchlist". Clicking on it you will see the last modifications of the pages your are watching. By default these are your user pages and the pages that you have edited. You can add or remove pages in your watchlist simply by clicking on the star on the left of the search window (the page is in your watchlist if the star is blue). You may also receive a mail each time that a page in your watchlist is modified, by editing the page "My preference" (top of the current page).


 * I recommend to use the search window, for the key words which you are interested in. For example, this allows to know that there is a rather complete article Cybernetics, in which Ashby's book is cited and that there is an article on Ashby. This allows to know the current knowledge and, if any, the current controversial opinions.


 * Sincerely