Talk:Formal concept analysis

message: I actually know Lattice Theory out the wazoo, but I still fail to understand what this article is about.  Does anyone care to shed any light on the subject?  In particular, what is the purpose of this subject?  How is it useful?  Why is it interesting enough that people have written books and articles on it?  It seems vaguely interesting but the current article doesn't really communicate the usefulness or purpose of this subject.  Cazort 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My naive understanding is that's a principled way of automatically deriving an ontology from a collection of objects and their properties. So it's useful to the extent that ontologies are useful more generally and to the extent that the properties are easier to define and derive than the full ontology. —David Eppstein 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the definitions there are unambiguous. What's left out is why you should care; for that I guess you need to refer to the Valiant article (which I haven't yet done). But it has little or nothing to do with formal concept analysis. A concept in that setting is a subset of a given domain; the difficulty of learning a concept is the number of membership queries you have to do to distinguish it from all other concepts in a concept class; and the exclusion dimension is the difficulty of the hardest concept in the class. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF is Formal Concept Analysis?

message: The first sentence in Recovering ... reads:
The Hasse diagram of the concept lattice ... encodes enough information to recover the original context from which it was formed. 
Looking at the graphics of the Example (O = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}, A = {composite,even,odd,prime,square}) and following the description in Recovering I wonder how to recover for example every single of the three numbers 3, 5, 7 from the Hasse diagram since the diagram with  O' = {1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10}, A' = A is the same but without the objects 5 and 7 (or the one "ignoring" 6 and 8: O= {1,2,3,4,9,10}, A = A).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.184.91.223 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Recovering the context from the Hasse diagram'' vs. ''Example'' 

message: I would add an extra point to the comment above: it doesn't make much sense to instantiate the example, before stating the formal definitions. The comment above is from 2008, almost 4 years old. In this case I may change the order, and improve both sections if there is no further comments within 2 months Pedro 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gowers disagrees. It can be difficult to read formal definitions without having a clear example in mind first. I think the "intuitive description" provides enough of the framework to understand the example, without getting as abstract as possible as quickly as possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The example section should be after the formal definition 

message: We have considerably revised the German version of this article about a year ago. "We", this is a group, most of us mathematicians at "Ernst Schröder Center for Conceptual Knowledge Processing". Among us, Bernhard Ganter one of the authors of Formal Concept Analysis. Foundations and Applications online-description, Peter Burmeister and Karl Erich Wolff', retired math professors who also were involved in the development of FCA. (see Overview and history and References)
One of our main goals in revising the article was, to write the article in a way, not only comprehensible to mathematicians, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone. Not to mention, that Rudolf Wille who can be regarded to be the father of FCA always tried hard to get math out of the ivory tower.
We would like to blend in some of our ideas into this English article. I have tried to translate the introduction of the German article to English: User:MRewald/FBA.
We are interested in a cooperation to improve the article.
In the German article we also have replaced the example section by an example, we believe to be more related to practical use. This would be one of the next sections I'd be going to translate.
We also have added a list of publications which deal with the practical application of FCA.
I just uploaded a figure in English language with the line chart of the example we used in the German article. Example (de)
Looking forward to productive cooperation --MRewald (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of German Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Formal concept analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416002832/http://www.fcahome.org.uk/fcasoftware.html to http://www.fcahome.org.uk/fcasoftware.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the "disambiguation needed" tags in the data set on "bodies of water". Reason: this data is a citation from a semantic field study, and should therefore not be altered. The author of that study did not disambiguate, because that is left to the semantic field.
--Bernhard Ganter (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation tags removed 

message: In the section "Extensions of the theory: Triadic concept analysis", Klaus Biedermann should be cited, not only Rudolf Wille.  Biedermann did the formalization of the "triadic Galois connection" and other triadic fundamentals.  Wille invented the derived trilattice structure and diagram.70.112.90.106 (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triadic Concept Analysis