Parody math paper - defining properties

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Whovian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paper Properties
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around defining "properties" in a parody mathematics paper, particularly in relation to establishing a notion of similarity between objects. The scope includes theoretical exploration of mathematical definitions and concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes defining properties of an object as a set, suggesting that similarity could be a function that compares these properties.
  • Another participant suggests using two distinct sets: one for objects and another for properties, with a function mapping objects to their properties.
  • A later reply references the concept of a quasi-ordinal knowledge space, noting its relation to topological structures.
  • There is a humorous undertone regarding the seriousness of the topic, questioning the engagement of philosophers and psychologists with the parody.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing approaches to defining properties and similarity, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a consensus on the best definition.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of properties and their relationship to objects, as well as the implications of using different mathematical structures, which remain unresolved.

Whovian
Messages
651
Reaction score
3
Parody math paper - defining "properties"

And no, I don't mean properties in the mathematical sense, but rather in the "everyday" sense.

In a parody mathematics paper I'm writing, I'm trying to define the "properties" of an object as a stepping stone to defining similarity. If we let P(o) be the set of all properties of o, similarity, in this case, is a function ##S## which takes two objects as an input and gives an element of (0,1] as an output, such that ##P\left(o\right)\cap P\left(o'\right)\subset P\left(o''\right)\cap P\left(o'\right)\implies S\left(o,o'\right)<S\left(o,o''\right)##, among other things. Clearly, if we just let properties be arbitrary elements of the power set of the set of objects (in which the objects having said property correspond to the elements of the set,) this axiom is basically moot, since for any o≠o'', the "if" bit of that statement is always false.

I'm thinking maybe just a topology over the set of objects, where properties are open sets in this topology? Does anyone have any ideas for a better or other definition?

(If this is a bad place for this post, can this be locked, deleted, or moved to the appropriate forum?)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What about having two distinct sets? A set of all possible objects ##X##, and a set of all possible properties ##S##.

Then ##P## is a function from ##X## to ##2^S##.

Also, you might intend this to be comedy, but do you really think philosophers and psychologists have anything better to do than to take this serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_space
 
micromass said:

So, basically, a quasi-ordinal knowledge space is a slightly weaker structure than a topology (only closed under binary and therefore by induction finite union instead of arbitrary union?)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K