Talk:Hypostatic abstraction

Why this redirect from Formal Object?

I don't understand why when I was looking for Formal Object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_object, I arrive on this page. Is it because the process of Hypostatic abstraction creates (new) formal objects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.255.4 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been also bitten by that redirect, which is a terrible one because this article is too technical. I'll try to find a better candidate for this redirect among Philosophy articles.Diego Moya (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed simply to Formalism (mathematics).Diego Moya (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference?

In layman's terms, what's the difference in "honey is sweet" and "honey posseses sweetness"; does it really matter which way it is stated? Rlevse 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

JA: The information is practically the same, at least in the offing, but the transformed version assumes the existence of a new thing in the world, namely, sweetness, as something that exists on a par, more or less, with other things, like honey. That may be a mere grammatical difference, and it can be a risky business to be positing new entities in excess, but in the cases that are really of interest, like numbers and quarks and viruses and so on, it can be a practically indispensable trick of thought. Jon Awbrey 14:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse Aha, my buddy User:Coffeeboy and I get it now; well, actually, I think he already understood it-;) Rlevse 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know (or maybe add) that some analytic philosophy interpretations of 'honey is sweet' would be in terms of properties (in fact this may be the status quo); so that 'honey is sweet' should be understood as 'honey has the property of sweetness (or being sweet)'. There is some debate about how we should understand what a property is, but I believe it's generally taken to be something in itself, an extra if you like, over and above the honey. ---J

JA: Be sure to check out the link by Zeman:

• J. Jay Zeman, Peirce on Abstraction

JA: It's a really great read on the whole history of "dormitive virtue", and gives some clues about the different perspectives of pragmatic and analytic philosophies. Will fill in some links later on the "fictions" of Jeremy Bentham, connections to Moses Schönfinkel, Bertrand Russell, combinator calculus, theory of computation, etc. Jon Awbrey 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Diagrams not intuitive

The diagram does not help me understand Hypostatic abstraction. Rather than explain it further, I would suggest dropping the diagram.

-- Rajah9 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the diagram to be quite helpful.

-- Irb 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

JA: I will add some exposition. The last couple of diagrams are related to the existential graphs that Charles Peirce developed for reasoning about complex relationships and subtle transformations like those involved in mathematics, of which HA is a very important example. Jon Awbrey 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph ...

Jon, please edit the first para, which currently includes a sentence of 94 words, into something simple and elegant (or at least digestible in one sitting). The entry presently appearing on the main page would be a good start for a revised para. Obey 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

JA: Sorry, but that paragraph is a paraphrase of Peirce's original, historically important, and very well-considered statement, and it's already digested down quite a bit from the way Peirce wrote it. The version on the main page is okay for a taste, but it leaves out many essential details. Some things can only be made so simple before they verge on misinformation, so let's not go there. Jon Awbrey 17:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Accuracy and attention to detail go without saying. This is about accessibility. The current version lacks it. The paragraph in its present form is unnecessarily and possibly embarrassingly long-winded. The art of the expert is surely to craft the actually or apparently abstruse into something readily understood by the rest of us. And if we've paraphrased from a historically important statement, well then, please block quote the original into the body of the article, further down. Without change, the article deserves {{technical}} or {{cleanup-context}} . If you don't change it, then maybe it should have {{expert}} or possibly {{attention}} . The bottom line is that there exists at least one version of the para which is much more clear and concise then the current version. So we really do need to go there, and you seem to be the best candidate to handle it. Seriously, please have a go. Obey 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

JA: I promise to work on it a couple of days, and see how it looks then, but there seems to be something about accuracy of paraphrase that you fail to grasp, and so I'm afraid that it must go "with" saying. I gave a reasonable fascimile, much clarified and digested from the original source text, of a historically important statement by a major commentator, indeed, a veritable forefather of the subject in question. I then proceeded to give a more vernacular exposition of what it says, accompanied by a "keep it concrete and simple" (KICAS) example, plus several figures just for good measure. I'm perfectly happy to blockquote the original, but if you knew Peirce, you would know what a model of accessibility my paraphrase is, and it would still be necessaary to have a middle ground paraphrase to relate it to the contemporary scene. The exposition can always be expanded, but I do not see my job or yours as that of rewriting history. If you look through the mathematics articles, there is no pandering to accessibility that would be tolerated by that community if they think it would falsify the subject. But I'll work on it. Meanwhile, you might work on a rewrite of this:

• AL: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

• AL: Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

• AL: But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

• AL:Gettysburg Address

JA: Then try to substitute your version for AL's version there. Let's talk again in a couple of days and compare our experiences.

JA: OK, after one bad case of revisionary hysteria, I did manage to ex(or)cise a few words and parsel out the first sentence in two pieces, the first of which now has a meagre 60 words, well under the barbarism of the 82 words — but who's counting!? — in the "embarrassingly long-winded" wind-up sentence of AL's otherwise embarassingly short-winded speech. Maybe it would help if I use more dashes? Jon Awbrey 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• The wind-up was more effective in getting you to produce a better start to an interesting article, seeing as how you didn't make the attempt after the initial, polite request. Now, this Gettysburg gauntlet you've thrown down is something else. Is it comment on how the intro para to the Gettsyburg article is everything your previous effort lacked? Or some extraordinary comparison between your original 94 words and the 272 odd words which "invoked the principles of human equality espoused in the Declaration of Independence"? Or can you just not get that I don't know Peirce from Pauli and no one should ever have to in order to get through any WP article? And your dashes comment speaks for itself man. Obey 09:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

JA: Oh, lighten up. It was mostly just something to do to keep the wrong hemisphere of my brain distracted while the proper half'o'my'wit worked on it. I think it's better now, but I could put a "what he's about to say" paragraph in front of it, and maybe break the figure into sections, verbalizing each piece. When I get some time to get back to it. Jon Awbrey 07:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm with you now, and I'd say your autopilot attempt was much better than the switched on efforts of others. I like what there's now, thanks for taking care of this and contributing the article in the first place. Obey 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hey man, GA is featured article! You could try your HA / GA comparison over at GA talk! 222.167.96.147 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• JA: Sorry, I didn't understand what you were saying here. Jon Awbrey 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Note on punctuation and quotation (p's & q's)

JA: Quoting is a very important operation in formal linguistics, and since the early days of computer-processed texts, the convention in the formal sciences on the use of quotation marks in coordination with other marks of punctuation has changed from what may still be common in some journalistic settings, namely, don't quote it if the lexeme in question doesn't say it. Nuff said. Jon Awbrey 18:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Edited entry for clarity, precision, and expression

I edited the entry rather extensively to be clearer and more precise. Also, I reduced extra words here and there. I hope I improved it.

1. In particular I didn't like the opening definition of the article, which read:

Hypostatic abstraction in mathematical logic, also known as hypostasis or subjectal abstraction, is a formal operation that transforms an assertion to a relation; for example...

This isn't really accurate. An assertion is a proposition; in this case the assertion is "Honey is sweet". A relation is a two-place predicate; in this case the relation is "possesses" (or "has"). Calling the statement "Honey possesses sweetness" a relation is confusing for people that know a little logic.

It would be more accurate to say, for example, that hypostasis converts an attribution to a relationship.

However, this is just a feature of hypostasis and not a definition. It does not tell you what hypostasis is.

The real point is converting the predicate "sweet" into an abstract entity "sweetness". My definition says this precisely, although I admit the sentence is now a little long for a reader who is not familiar with the terminology of mathematical logic.

2. The sentence about Peirce now reads:

As Peirce describes it, the main point about the formal operation of hypostatic abstraction, insofar as it operates on formal linguistic expressions, is that it converts an adjective or predicate into an extra subject, thus increasing by one the number of "subject" slots -- called the arity or adicity -- of the main predicate.

My intention was to improve the wording without changing the thesis of the sentence, which appears to be that the main point of Peirce's definition is the -arity increase. But is this really true? Should it receive this emphasis?

3. I edited the sentence starting with "grammatical trace" rather than deleting it because I liked the metaphor of precipitation. But I have to admit I didn't completely understand where this sentence was going, so maybe someone else can take a look at it.

4. The rest of the changes were cosmetic as far as I can tell.

-- 84.227.9.55 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I created the previous version of the first sentence to replace a terrible previous version (which nevertheless included enough information to explain the concept), and wasn't still sure that it was correct. That's the good thing about wiki, the final result can be better than the sum of all editors' knowledge. I've just reordered and tweaked it a bit to make it have shorter sentences. I find this and your other edits an improvement, though I can't be sure about how to solve your doubts either. Diego (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)