From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Patterns or Designs[edit]

Patterns1 represent only themselves . Designs are Patterns2 that represent something other than themselves like DNA, bridges, horses and computers. There are different types of patternsx in the pattern and design1 and/or design2 sense. Design1 would be a known/seen designer such as a human designing the bridge(the bridge represents something other than itself). Design2 is the subscript for an unseen designer who is known though such as Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Some natural phenomena, such as clouds, trees, and shorelines, have an approximately fractal character, but do not represent patterns in the strict sense of the term.

Removed. Since when does "pattern" have a commonly accepted "strict sense"? Also, what does it mean for something (e.g. a cloud) to "represent patterns"?

Patterns may be observable through the senses of sight, hearing and touch.

Removed specific references to vision, hearing, and touch. This implies that patterns of smell and taste are impossibilities, which is silly.

--Ryguasu 16:36 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Are you using pattern in the pattern or design sense? See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
We are using 'pattern' in the general English sense of the word, not referring to a Greek Lexicon, or narrowly using it in a creation/evolution sense. Your link partly explained the words-containing-numbers that lost me in the section above, though !-- (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Any thing that happens does so either in the pattern or design sense. Either the tornado had intent when he selected the house on the left for destruction or it didn't . Selection can also be used in the pattern or design sense. 1) The tornado selected the house on the left for destruction. 2) The man selected the house on the left for destruction. 1)-pattern and 2)-design. The word selection itself has no meaning only ideas in the pattern or design sense have meaning. Would evolution in creation/evolution be a pattern or design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


I agree with the definition. In fact I think it is excellent. But the current link from the word 'rule' should be removed until the 'rule' page is modified to give a usage that is appropriate. The ones there now are not, in my opinon.

This article stinks[edit]

This article stinks. It's a disorganized mess, akin to creating an article for "doorknob" and then adding a ==See also== section for brass doorknobs, doorknobs in art, creatures that look like doorknobs, and entrances. Someone probably started it as a dicdef (when they shouldn't have) and people just kept on adding onto it instead of putting it out of its misery. I really have no clue what to replace it with, though, or even how to organize it. It doesn't seem like it should be a disambiguation page. --Ardonik 22:14, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

'Pattern' is a very general concept - I feel specific instances should be either a 'disambiguation page' or 'See also' section, definitely not both (nor half-and-half, as at present). I don't know which of the two is Wikipedia's preferred pattern !) -- (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nasaan ang "Patterns of Inheritance"?[edit]

I dont like the article. I am looking for the "Patterns of Inheritance"!!! Where is it?! kindly put the meaning of "Patterns of Inheritance"......pls....


I wonder if someone could explain just how many occurances of something, when referring to a physical action, must occur before it is considered to be a pattern? For example; someone begins to exhibit violent tendancies, how many times would this need to occur before one could say this person is exhibiting a pattern of such tendencies? 2..3..4?

Thanks D

If it were assumed that these violent episodes had 'family' resemblances I would say that any number would do however the lower number(s) are more useful to examine.

hope it starts an answer for you /R Rr00nn (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. Terrible example. Wouldn't a scientific law constitute as a pattern? We know that if we throw a ball faster it will go farther. That is a pattern. So why is physics not included in this article? If we combine two hydrogens with an oxygen we will have H2O which is water. Why is chemistry not included in this article? Does mathematics not apply to both fields? If we spin magnets inside copper wire we create electricity that is a pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say the more occurrences, the clearer the pattern. But a pattern can be broken and yet remain a pattern, just an imperfect pattern.
Maybe need to define a ratio of pattern/non-pattern sequences ? Probability or Stochastic or Entropy statistics ? Hypothesis testing ?
Patterns of specific kinds should be described on separate pages - keep this very general. The 'See also' section should be merged into the Disambiguation page, IMO ... -- (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
A pattern may be an abstraction, as in mathematics or logic, as well as a generalization of a sense object, regardless of the specific sense.


I think the disambiguation page for pattern is better than this page. Can we merge them? Do people do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary Gage (talkcontribs) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

+1 for merging --boarders paradise (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeating = patterns[edit]

Since nothing last for a million years,everything in the world repeats.So, everybody has a big starte with the use of a notebook from history discoveries.Thank God for Egypt


Hey I am revising this page for a class of mine. So far I have removed the pegogical patterns section and provided a link in the see also section. I got rid of the quotation section and divided the quotes into their respective sections (like the quote about patterns in art was placed into the Art section). I changed some of the ordering of examples at the top of the page.

I am thinking about splitting the math and science section. I don't really know what I want to do with the geometry section. The content seems a bit irrelevant to begin with.

There are many more changes on the way. Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated.

So, I have made a number of changes. I got rid of some of the wordy context that made no sense and some of the misplaced sentences. This is proving to be a bit more difficult than I first imagined. It is a very broad and ambiguous topic. Patterns may be found literally anywhere they are seeked out. I don't even know where to begin adding so I have just been playing with available content.

Jkercher0 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As this is indeed a philosophical issue, a mental concept, the definition and description will be difficult. Glad you're working on this article. Some thoughts (from a novice): It seems to me there are two sides of the definition, one dealing with "the original", and another dealing with the copies. There is also a dichotomy between physical patterns vs. mental patterns, all of which makes the definition very complicated to unravel.

The first meaning may be directly related to the etymology of "Patron" ~ someone or something that makes it possible to create something else; ~ the original from which all copies are made. This part of the definition works for physical objects (rubber stamps, templates, models, blueprints). The mental concepts and ideas about "form" and pattern will present the most difficulty for this article. This side of the meaning includes the pattern language (an idea started by an architect and later adopted by computer scientists), and the more technical applications of the word.

The "easier" definition of pattern is related to trends, conventions and general practice - repeating phenomena observed (over time ?). The subject is not the "original", but the arrangement and disposition of the "copies" that is important. All the various visual patterns fit into this part of the definition. There is also a temporal aspect to this part of the definition: patterns of behavior, pattern recognition, holding pattern, male pattern baldness.

Are all patterns repeating? I think repetition is nearly essential. The original gets repeated, or, the pattern of copies repeats the original. Clouds, fractals, pongol patterns, islamic calligraphy, Penrose tiles and wallpaper groups may not repeat themselves exactly, but they are repetitive, repetition is key to their identity. And finally, even the lack of an orderly pattern is a pattern (eg.; random pattern).

For your rewrite, can you coordinate with the following: Media related to patterns at Wikimedia Commons

- Dogears (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Patterns do not necessarily repeat[edit]

Since when does a pattern have to repeat? Some patterns repeat but many do not. Look at Pongal patterns from India for example. Penrose tiles form patterns that do not repeat however large the are covered. Repeating patterns are a subset of patterns. treesmill (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In a very real sense, symmetry is a repetition. Bilateral symmetry is repeated by reflecting in a mirror. Rotational symmetry is repeated by rotation about a point. You are taking a narrow definition of repetition by pure Translation only, not Rotation or Reflection ! I'll see if I can wedge that in somewhere nicely ... -- (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The most basic patterns are based on repetition and periodicity.
Other patterns, such as Penrose tiling and Pongal or Kolam patterns from India,, use symmetry which is a form of finite repetition.
OK ?-- (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No, not OK. The fact that patterns exist that are repetitive does not prove that all do. The most remarkable characteristic of Penrose Tilings is that they are 'aperiodic'. (See the WP entry if you doubt this.) It is simply wrong to state that patterns have to repeat. treesmill (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I see no further disagreement, I will amend the article accordingly. treesmill (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

pattern, from the French patron ?[edit]

Umm ... Google Translate says patron=boss !

This is unclear.

The wiktionary link gives

Middle English patron < Old French patron < Latin patronus (“patron”) < pater (“father”).
For the semantic shift, a patron is to be thought of as a model citizen, i.e., to be imitated.
  • Omit etymology ?
  • Clarify 'Old French' ?
  • Omit French and go straight to Latin ?

-- (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

+1 from me --boarders paradise (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Pattern vs Form ?[edit]

If we need to differentiate it from a copy, then the original can be called a 'form' instead? (as in 'true to form') -- (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Two Factor Authentication[edit]

I suggest this section be deleted. Besides being difficult to see its relevance, I think it is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving the article[edit]

The article as it stands is not too bad on what it covers - it's plain and reasonably cited - but there is much it does not cover. In particular

  • What is a pattern? The definition needs to be far wider than at present. All learning, all of science and mathematics, possibly all of human cognition relies on pattern. Refs needed of course.
  • The two key meanings seem to be visual pattern, something that in some way repeats as a visual element; and logical pattern, something that can be applied repeatedly as a template or method for recognising or handling something. This needs explaining and developing. With refs.
  • The coverage needs to be deepened as well as broadened; automatic pattern recognition for instance needs some explanation, as does the software development use of the term. No doubt other areas too. Again with refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Please write the correct reference for "Stewart, Ian. 2001. Pages 48-49" and alike. I wanted to look it up, but have no other relation to the topic, so i cannot judge, which book exactly has been referenced. Helt cs (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's called a short reference, and we use it because we cite different pages of it in various places. The full reference is in the Bibliography under "Patterns in nature". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is "Reference" written in the title of that section... But my main point is, that I do not believe that i am the only one runs into the issue: Clicking onto the footnote in the text and then wondering about the incompleteness of that reference. I just wanted to help those people that run into the same problem, regardless of the fact if this makes the references section look a bit more arkward. Helt cs (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad you've seen that. It is quite normal to use short form references, indeed they are a good thing because they reduce repetition (and the risk of error if anything needs updating). I have reordered the ref sections for clarity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Money, banknotes pattern[edit]

I am missing banknote pattern, its very typical, and cant be missed.--Mile (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, they are all different, to make them hard to copy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)