Added "Function Drinks" to the list
When I searched for "Function" (looking for the beverage company) I had trouble finding it since it wasn't on this list. I added it for anyone who may be searching for "Function" in the future. LaughinSkull (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Merge to Talk:Function (mathematics)
- User:Brianjd archived some of it to Talk:Function (mathematics)/archive 1 in November 2004; i moved the rest just now. This discussion should probably serve as a pointer. --Piet Delport 02:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph had the following as a comment: "Is this whole paragraph anything but nonsense babble? Can someone fix it or remove it please?" I had to read through it a few times before I understood it myself. I've tried to fix some of the awkward language, but I'm not an engineer, so it'd be good if someone could have a look at what I've done. One thing that bugs me is that the very first sentence doesn't really make clear what an "entity" is. Given that this is a disambig, the whole thing should probably be moved somewhere. - RedWordSmith 04:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the opening paragraph is pretty bad. I at least removed the reference to "TOGA meta-theory", which appears to be vanity, or original research, or even crankery. I just can't believe that the second-most-important thing people whould know about "function" is how it relates to "TOGA meta-theory". But I think more work is needed on this paragraph. -- Dominus 13:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Having looked into it a little more, I think the TOGA thing is at best original research. There is no discussion of this on the web except for:
- This article and copies of it
- The web sites in the casaccia.enea.it domain, apparently home of "A. M. Gadomski", the inventor of this theory
- Other material directly related to Gadomski, such as this conference talk announcement
- Moreover, the changes on 27 May 2005 that added TOGA to the explanation of Function were made by an anonymous user at address 188.8.131.52, which resolves to nat-75-158.casaccia.enea.it, who is presumably Mr. Gadomski.
- So it appears that "TOGA meta-theory" is a recent invention of Mr. Gadomski, and not something that is widely understood or studied, and not appropriate for inclusion in the opening paragraph of this article. -- Dominus 13:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please also see User_talk:184.108.40.206 where we can collect information as this isn't the only article this user edited. Sbwoodside 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your critical comments. I am not the author of the previous modifications but I am "Mr. Gadomski", and I'm feeling responsible for this confusion. I do not want to enter in details of your argumentations what I consider not essential for the definition of function. My proposal is based on the systemic generalization of the specific notions of this term ( systemic generalization means the selection of essential properties of a preselected concept, necessary and sufficient in order to use it in different contexts).
In the case of function, its unique common feature is to be a property necessary for something planed or designed. Of course, this idea is possible to express in different manner. In the TOGA meta-theory, the concept function is inserted into the formal specification of the relation between a system and its design-goal, in the domain-of-activity of every intelligent agent/system/object/entity. Therefore, it is defined using the previously defined TOGA concepts. In such systemic (== systems theory)context, function is recognized as every goal-oriented property of a process or a system, where: - goal is a requested state, - property is an abstact-system composed of the attributes of the system of interest.
Summarizing, my definition of function is possible to consider as a universal one which unifies numerous locally "functioning" definitions, and therefore it should be added explicitly.
From this moment, I am the unique User: 220.127.116.11: Adam Maria Gadomski
P.S 1. I would I to notice that whole esplanation below is a part or directly results from TOGA, and more precisely speaking from the SPG conceptualisation, 1988.
"In engineering, functions are necessary consequences of design goals. The direct carrier of a dynamic function is a process, and the direct carrier of a static function is a system. Therefore it is possible to realise the same function using different physical processes and systems, and one process or system can be a carrier of multiple functions. For example, if the main function of a clock is to display the current time, that function can be realized by different physical processes, including atomic, electronic, and mechanical processes.
A system is said to be functioning if it is executing or if it is ready and able to execute its functions.''
P.S 2. Sorry, English is not my mather language, therefore maybe some corrections of the style are necessary.
- Regardless of all that, Wikipedia is not a place to put your original research and ideas. If at some time in the future, your ideas become widely accepted, then that is the time to include them in Wikipedia, not before. I have reverted your contributions to this article. Please make sure you understand the policy at Wikipedia:No original research before you edit this article again. Thanks -- Dominus 05:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, Mr. Dominus. In order to be consequent and ethically correct, it is necessary to remove my orginal definition (if without references) and its explenation, it means: "In general (not in the mathematical but in the engineering sense), a function is a goal-oriented property of an entity. The carrier of a function is a process; therefore, is possible to realise the same function using different physical processes, and one process can be a carrier of multiple functions. For example, the main function of a clock, the presentation of time, can be realized by different physical processes, including atomic, electronic, and mechanical processes. ". - By the way, after your simplifications you eliminated also static functions.. You should remember that, independently on your definitions, a carrier of every process is a system, and not all functions are dynamic. - Anyway, maybe, now is too early for my systemic generalized definition. Please return to many locally valid classical definitions, as you prefer. Thanks. - Mr. A.M.Gadomski
In order to stop continuous Dominus' corrections of my orginal (unfortunately) explenations of the term function, I have eliminated all my contributions to this article. I have reverted the opening paragraph to the previous form (history page: 05:18, 21 April 2005).
- I hope, now we have no problems with "orginal research" or "self promotion".
P.S. By the way, if an "orginal reserch" is anonimous, then is it not more an "orginal research"?
...I think, we need an explanation of this aspect in Wikipedia:No orginal research.
--Adam M. Gadomski 16:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
More on TOGA Meta-Theory
I have removed this yet again, for the same reasons as before. To wit: it is original research; it does not appear to be widely accepted by any scientific or philosophical community; it appears to be the ideas of a single individual a Mr. Adam Maria Gadomski; it appears to be a vanity placement. -- Dominus 19:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is still very hard to understand. I suggest we delete it until someone comes up with something better. If no one objects, I will do this in 7 days. Volfy 01:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the following self-reference from the top of the article:
It seems highly unlikely that someone typing "function" into Wikipedia would expect to be taken to the user page of a Wikipedian with a similar name. We don't have a disambiguation link from Neutral to User:Neutrality, and I don't think it's a good practice to start. —Caesura(t) 18:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (whose user page is thankfully not linked to from the Caesura article)
- I definitely agree. I was going to remove this myself last time I was here. Don't actually remember why I didn't, but glad to see it go. -Ethan (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Why I deleted the introduction.
Looking at other disambiguation pages, they do not attempt a general definition but procede directly to the disambuation. The current definition is cute but confusing. At first I tried to refine it, but decided that was inappropriate. Disambiguate first, then define. Rick Norwood 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)