Talk:C-K theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re the addition of logic categories to this page: there are a number of problems that need to be discussed. Firstly, and this is more general than the issue of the categories, the treatment given is far from neutral. Claims made by the proponents of the theory are being treated as factual on the page. This is in violation of the basic policy matter of NPOV: the article should present a treatment that is not so one-sided.

Secondly, the claims to be using a method that is deeply related to mathematical logic simply have to be wrong. A method such as forcing relates to delicate questions of logical independence in axiom systems. While it may be perfectly true that concepts from logic have heuristic value in this area, and it may be verifiable that proponents of the theory point this out, such claims should be treated from a distance. It is not adequate to tell editors or readers to "read the literature". The presentation is neither neutral or credible. The same is true for the remarks about ZF set theory. It may well be that there are uses for systems based on set theory that are useful for specification or "briefs": this is well known in the case of Z notation. It is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article to represent as factual certain heuristic aspects of this use of set theory. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In mathematics, conference proceedings are not generally considered reliable sources. I don't know about "design theory" conferences. I tagged one, but about over half of the references are conference proceedings by Hatchuel (mostly with Weil, and 3 with Le Masson). I'm not sure there's enough here to suggest that it is not the case that the name is Hatchuel's and not generally accepted, even in the "design theory" community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Conference proceedings might reasonably be taken as expository sources. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. In my experience, though, a paper appearing in a conference proceedings book may only mean the paper was presented at the conference; there's no peer review for either accuracy or interest in the concept. The acceptance of the paper at the conference may mean that the conference organizer believed the paper would be correct and interesting.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks to you all for helping us improve the quality of this page and taking interest in this work. Unfortunately current calendar constraints do not allow us to be taking much action in the near future in order to clarify the points that are apparently not well understood. We will however take time as soon as possible to extend the article and explain in more detail the relationships between C-K theory and mathematics, as well as add exciting and interesting new relationships that have come up in recent research around the world on the topic. Concerning the reliability of the sources, we understand that there is skepticism on the fact that we present mainly conference proceedings. Within the next few months this can be improved as most of the sources presented here are in process of being published in journals. However we must point out that conference papers are of course reviewed before acceptance and are accepted solely under condition that it presents interest and accuracy in the domain. In our opinion this should be a suffisent condition to guarantee the reliability of the source. Finally, thank you once more for the interest and time spent on this, and we hope that you will continue to help us on improving the standards of this article. Ingi.b (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Absurd[edit]

I'm sorry; the reference "forcing2009" is scientifically absurd. To take one example:
"The only possible proof in both cases [consistency or independence] is to design at least one of such models!"
Aside from the excess of explanation marks in the paper, this is incorrect in general, and false in regard "forcing". Even Godel's proof of the consistency of GCH (using V=L) can be thought of, for any finite set S of axioms of ZF+GCH, constructing a larger finite set of axioms S* of ZF; and using a model of S* to construct a model of S. The compactness theorem is then used to prove Con(ZF)→Con(ZF+GCH). Forcing, in its many interpretations, always uses techniques of that kind. Even if you were to work from a model of ZF (from within some larger metatheory), it doesn't necessarily construct a model of ZF+~AC, only models of finite fragments of ZF+~AC. (Some versions of the proof then go on to construct a specific model, using an ultralimit of the individual models, but that is one of the proofs of the compactness theorm.) I wouldn't call the method "design" (although I believe Paul Cohen would have.)
Am I going to have to publish a paper on the absurdity of using C-K theory in mathematics in order to dispel this absurdity? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, I think you should stick to using Talk pages for improving the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right. Still, it's unlikely that we can find a paper in a mathematics journal noting this absurdity (unless I were to write one), and it's not likely that many of the authors in design journals are aware of the absurdity. How can we determine the reliability of the quasi-mathematical references if they are (fact not yet established, but assumed for the purpose of this discussion) published in reliable design journals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Starting from the assumption that the article is over-written, which is plausible to me whatever else is going on, the thing would be to simplify the language used and clarify any claims made by proponents. The section on mathematical logical is clearly at most a heuristic use. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have done substantial copy edits, to try to bring the article into line with our standards. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your effort in tightening the article. It has clearly gained in quality from your edits. Concerning the section on mathematical interpretations of C-K Theory, I agree that it is best not to make it figure for the moment in the wikipedia article, as it is too controversial and recent research. The current text that simply states that this research is being developed in the design theory community is sufficient. Thank you once again for your time on editing the article to respect NPOV. I suggest that the NPOV banner could be removed, what do you think? I'm not fluent with this type of wikipedia practice! Ingi.b (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The question becomes whether this is well-known and accepted, even within the design community. If you can establish that, the NPOV tag probably should be removed (although, a "controversial" tag might be placed on the talk page, even so. If not, then some reliable criticism should be in the article, as well. (If you'll accept the advice of someone who thinks that some of the methods are absurd.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the template to {{too few opinions}}. This is more specific, and perhaps covers Arthur's point. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Mostly. I would also us like to consider the possibility that this is "not even wrong"; that it's only a few people promoting this concept, and nobody else cares. I don't know what the template for that would be. Perhaps {{notability}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added some inline uses of {{lopsided}}, to indicate places where I see the possibility of adding comment from non-proponents. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)