Talk:pumping lemma

RFV discussion: September 2011–March 2012

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

pumping lemma

This needs citations so the definition can be confirmed or improved. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a class about this a while ago, so it definitely exists. :) —CodeCat 00:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• I propose the nomination is withdrawn: the term's existence is easily attestable in Google books. The definition needs some work, but appears at least in part correct. --Dan Polansky 14:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  I propose that the definition (which is available at WP) be withdrawn and replaced by {{rfdef}} so that a descriptive definition supported by citations is added. Or else we could abandon the strictures we have in practice on prescriptive definitions. The opportunities this would afford for contributors to provide helpful advice on how to use words would be endless. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cited. Equinox ◑ 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could infer the meaning from the citations. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You've looked at Pumping lemma, right? I'm not sure that this is something we can easily convey in a general-purpose dictionary because it requires some basic knowledge of formal languages. The same goes for various esoteric mathematical concepts that are best defined in terms of symbols and equations (we have some entries whose definitions contain more of those than of English text). Equinox ◑ 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is often difficult or impossible to extract a definition of a mathematical term from mere uses of the term that do not define the term. The quotations of use make the definition plausible at best. Non-mathematical words seem to be in a similar position, though: the quotations provided for them often make the definitions plausible rather than providing information sufficient for a full confirmation of the definitions. Mathematical definitions are not so much prescriptive as stipulative: a mathematical article typically first defines a term specific to it and then uses it as defined; the uses do not make definition extraction possible, as they rely on the definition provided before. Such an article does not tell people how they should use the term; instead, it declares how the authors intend to use the term in the article. When a term is used consistently by several authors, it is dictionary-worthy, I think, and the attestation of the term consists in providing three uses from articles or books such that the article or the book also defines the term, albeit in a different sentence. --Dan Polansky 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If terms are stipulative in their most common and serious use, what value do we add? Otherwise, you have summarized why such entries might not really fit in a reference that purports to be descriptive. Perhaps we can work from multiple authors' definitions and preserve a figleaf of descriptiveness. In any other use, how can anyone be sure what is meant? Is it one particular definition, some kind of transferred meaning, usage as an example or metaphor? The normal methods of inferring meaning from usage seem particularly hard to apply. I would argue that such "stipulative" definitions simply do not belong in Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The added value of having mathematical definitions in Wiktionary: It is true that the definitions of mathematical terms are already available in many articles that use the terms. Nonetheless, it is nice to have one repository of all the definitions. Furthermore, some articles leave some specialist terms undefined (such as "set union" or "partial order"), assuming they are part of the background knowledge of the readers of the article.

Descriptive vs prescriptive: A stipulated term is actually used with its stipulated meaning in the sentences that do not define the term. By defining the stipulated term in align with the definitions provided in the articles that both define and use the term, Wiktionary provides a definition that fits the way the term is actually used. Thus, Wiktionary does not tell how the term should be used. By paying attention to the actual use rather than the use that someone would like to see, Wiktionary is descriptivist rather than prescriptivist. Put differently, even if the definition of a term is not extracted from quotations of use but rather from definitions of the term, it can still be a definition that matches the actual use of the term. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh, kept. Re-open discussion here or at WT:RFC or RFD if you feel you must. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)