Talk:Quantity

message: I have made a substantial revision to previous version.
[AA: which we are trying to revise properly in a cooperative spirit]. 
I think intro needs to be clear, to the point, and orient the reader to the main points. There were a number of uncited statments and the essence of key points appeared to depend heavily on Aristotle, whereas there have been major developments since! 
[AA: we shouldn't undervalue the background knowledge on quantity]. 
I have omitted certain statements that were either very difficult to follow or erroneous as formulated: e.g. the statement that units are not divisible is not correct unqualified - units of continuous quantity are divisible, units of 'multitudes' are not (e.g. an applie is no longer a unit in a count of applies if sliced in half). I am open to discussion and debate on these points but I strongly urge citations to justify the re-introduction of omissions. The article still needs further revision and omissions, but this revision is a start. Holon 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantial revision

message: HOLON insists on such an intro:
In science and philosophy a quantity is a property or relation that exists in a range of magnitudes, such as the range of all lengths. 
[AA:  in reality (as a matter of fact), quantity is a basic property of things that exists as magnitudes and multitudes]. All the following is irrelevant to introduction or just defective and unverified:
<Examples of quantitative properties are mass, time, distance, heat, and angular separation.> [ AA: in fact, the cases of quantitative properties are both physical quantities and mathematical quantities, as well as numbers].
In classical terms, two magnitudes of a continuous quantity stand in relation to one another as ratios which, in turn, are real numbers. Such continuous quantities possess a particular structure, which was first explicitly characterized by Hölder (1901) as a set of axioms which define such features as identites and relations between mangitudes.[AA comments: unverified statement]. 
The term quantity may also refer to a multitude such as a number of apples or sub-atomic particles [AA comment: this property must be included in the definition, not mentioned at the end]
AZAMAT included the following in intro: "Commonly, quantity is viewed as the state of being much, or the basic property of things existing as magnitudes or multitudes." Quantity is not the basic property of things existing as magnitudes or multitudes. A given thing may have many properties that are quantitative, such as mass, volume, charge and so on. Quantity is a type of property that exists in a range of magnitudes. [right is Quantity is a type of property existing as magnitude and multitude]. Azamat also included the following in intro: "Of entities which pertain to quantities, some are such by their inner nature (as number), while others are functioning as states (properties, dimensions, attributes) and modifications like as heavy and light, long and short, broad and narrow, small and great, or much and little." The statement: "of entities which pertain to quantities ..." is confusing -- entities may possess quantitative properties, but it is unclear what is meant by entities which pertain to quantities. Is this supposed to mean abstract entities which are quantities?? [read as: of things which pertain to quantities] In what sense do they 'function as states'? [As STATES of Substances or Objects]. I have replaced the introduction, [worsening it]. Please discuss these changes: they do not enhance the article. Holon 12:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I omitted the section due to problems with the following:
There are three sorts of relationships between different types of quantities, namely ratio, rate, and scale. The ratio follows the classic definition of Euclid and expressed as a quotient. The ratio is always between two quantities of the same kind, i.e., between commensurable magnitudes or commensurable multitudes.
Firstly, in what sense is scale a relationship? [AA: there are two senses of 'scale', as a relative magnitude or as a proportion, the ratio between the size of something and its representation, we say the scale of mapping. Secondly, stating that relationships are always between quantities of the same kind is problematic. F=MA implies M=F/A which is a ratio of two different types of quantities. 
[AA comment: it is a ratio (kindly don't mix with relationships generally), which is between commensurable quantities; while A is a rate (of increase of velocity]. 
Although I happen to agree a case can be made for the contention, it is not a simple issue and needs to be better explained and justified to say the least. 
[AA: the issue is not really so complicated]. 
Thirdly, on what basis is it claimed there are three sorts of relationship? To use the same example, what about does F=MA? (rate is one relationship involved, but not the only one) 
[AA: please don't mix the ratio, the relative magnitudes of commensurable quantities, with the rate, a magnitude related to a time unit]. 
Lastly, although this could be fixed, the use of colons and semicolons in the subsequent lists was also of a poor standard. Holon 05:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantitative Relationsips

message: Azamat, let’s focus on some of the points and how we might best express them, Okay?
In science and philosophy a quantity is a property or relation that exists in a range of magnitudes, such as the range of all lengths. 
:AA: in reality, quantity is a basic property of things that exists as magnitudes and multitudes
::In what reality, according to whom or what criteria? Reality is a theory-laden term. Would you please provide examples of things that exist as magnitudes and multitudes. I think doing so may help to clarify a pivotal point so we can move on.
AA: right is Quantity is a type of property existing as magnitude and multitude
:I agree -- quantity is a kind of property which exists as magnitude or multitude -- so hopefully we can clarify the problem and agree on a way to express the definition.
Such continuous quantities possess a particular structure, which was first explicitly characterized by Hölder (1901) as a set of axioms which define such features as identites and relations between mangitudes.
:AA comments: unverified statement, )
::Azamat, please read the text carefully: the statement is clearly cited.
I mean a public accessibility of the reference.
Let's focus on points of difference first, see if we can agree. Later on, if necessary we may need to agree to disagree on certain points and to each put alternative points of view across.Holon 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. AA, I have attempted to merge our introductions as a starting point. On a specific point, a relation such as an angle (e.g. between two pieces of metal) is a fundamental kind of quantity, so I have retained this in the introduction (citation if you wish). I think we need to clarify quantity in mathematics before even trying to include reference to it in the intro, although some reference is of course implied as things stand. Holon 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I will take a look soon. Holon 09:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try to reach agreement on a definition, as a first step

message: Azamat, I would like to clarify an important point regarding the following:
Under the names of magnitude come what is continuous and unified and divisible into divisibles, all cases of non-collective nouns: the universe, matter, mass, energy, liquid, material, animal, plant, tree.
I do not follow precisely what this is trying to say: it may be the way you use English, I'm not sure. What exactly do you mean by "Under the names of magnitude come ..."? An issue here is that liquid is not a quantity. Properties of liquids, such as density and temperature, are quantities. The same issue applies to animal, plant, and so forth. I can change this again but we may just keep going around in circles if we don't firstly clarify the intention of the statement. Holon 04:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnitudes

message: "One form of much, muchly is used to say that something is likely to happen." This doesn't make sense to me. If there is no objection it should be deleted. Zeyn1 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much/muchly 

message: Initial version in the beginning of the article:
::<< Quantity is a kind of property which exists as magnitude or multitude. It is among the basic classes of things along with quality, substance, change, and relation. >>
Proposed change:
::<< Quantity is a kind of property which exists as magnitude or multitude. It involves equality, set, and order, and from this point of view, a quantity is an ordered set of equal objects; each individual object, belonging to the ordered set, can also be referred as "quantity" itself. It is among the basic classes of things along with quality, substance, change, and relation. >>
 
--Faustnh (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong opposition.  Most of the additional material seems to fit only the mathematical term (and only relating to discrete, as opposed to continuous, quantities, and a specific philosophical construct of those discrete quantities, at that).  Although, as a mathematician, I would prefer to have mathematical terms used, it's not the common definition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The proposed change is not going to fly, for lots of reasons.  The most important one is that it's original research.  But even from a mathematical perspective, I'm very far from convinced that having a linear order is either necessary or sufficient for quantity-hood. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting opinion on including or not the following change 

message: Just for the record - the edit war over whether the word "property" should be a link or not started two days before the relevant XKCD comic came out, so I think that's just a coincidence.
Is everyone happy now with leaving the link in (as it was in versions prior to 23 May) or does it need to be discussed?  Harryjohnston (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it is coincidence. The idea that "philosophy is the center of Wikipedia" has been around longer than that... I saw it for the first time at a widely read site about a week before Munroe reported it in the alt text of xkcd. That earlier sighting had every appearance of being old news even then. I don't really care one way or the other, but I do see a risk of losing encyclopedic value when word order or linkage is being gamed like this. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is happening more places than just here, and though it is older, it has intensified with that comic.  Looks in the xkcd forums response thread to that comic and you'll find several posts about pages it doesn't work on, and most of those were shortly afterward modified with added links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.88.57 (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: See WP:Get to Philosophy for some sketchy history of this. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:OVERLINK, the idea of Property (philosophy) in the philosophical sense is not an everyday understanding, and important in the context of defining exactly what quantity is. As an entire aside to this game thing, it legitimately makes sense to have the link, and makes little sense to devote such ridiculous effort to removing the link. --SgtLion (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and other Wikipedia pages link to it in the same way -- Lastrik (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The word property here is used in its everyday sense, there is no specialized philosophical meaning, and no need for a link. In any case creating links so that more articles will "get to philosophy" is an example of disruptive editing and could result in an editor being blocked. Paul August ☎ 11:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The debated link to "property" 

message: Hello everyone.
Question about "two magnitudes of continuous quantity", Isn't that a magnitude (already) a continuous quantity? if yes, why should someone say "two magnitudes of a continuous quantity", one can say just 'two magnitudes" as we already know they are continuous, or are there none continuous magnitudes? is yes, but then they are not magnitude anymore right?
If someone want to refer to multitudes then he can't say discrete magnitudes,
but he can say multitudes, because a magnitude is a continuous quantity.
Please your comments on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.205.132 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "two magnitudes of continuous quantity". 

message: In what system of iconography do three stripes signify quantity? Calling it a "multicultural sign" stretches credulity, to put it politely. Which cultures? Just plain Bill (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Link the word property to the page Property_(philosophy) to maintain the chain to phylosophy. 178.153.8.199 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I'm not going to overlink the lead section of the article just so a silly game can continue. Provide a valid, content-based rationale, or leave it be. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Paul August ☎ 18:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2018 

message: Change "property" in the first line to "property" 2604:6000:8903:6100:E080:75D8:6417:368D (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: per MOS:LEADLINK.  Even though there's a separate article about it, "property" is an ordinary word that doesn't really need to be linked to in order for a reader to understand how it's being used.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (I swear I didn't even see the nearly identical previous request and decline reason directly above this until after I answered!).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018 

message: Hyperlink for 'subject'; line one, third word. Olliegassor (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify. The third word is an indefinite article; linking it to subject (which is a disambiguation page) makes no sense. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019 

message: Add a link in the first word "property" to the wiki page of property:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property BMEP73 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 17:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

text: and undone. That link is blatantly irrelevant to this article. The request carries the aroma of the "get to philosophy" shenanigans which are not a legitimate basis for adding or removing wikilinks. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021