Talk:Hypostatic abstraction

message: I don't understand why when I was looking for Formal Object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_object, I arrive on this page. Is it because the process of Hypostatic abstraction creates (new) formal objects?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.255.4 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been also bitten by that redirect, which is a terrible one because this article is too technical. I'll try to find a better candidate for this redirect among Philosophy articles.Diego Moya (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed simply to Formalism (mathematics).Diego Moya (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this redirect from Formal Object?

message: In layman's terms, what's the difference in "honey is sweet" and "honey posseses sweetness"; does it really matter which way it is stated?  Rlevse 12:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the difference?

message: The diagram does not help me understand Hypostatic abstraction. Rather than explain it further, I would suggest dropping the diagram.
-- Rajah9 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagrams not intuitive

message: Jon, please edit the first para, which currently includes a sentence of 94 words, into something simple and elegant (or at least digestible in one sitting). The entry presently appearing on the main page would be a good start for a revised para. Obey 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph ...

message: JA: Quoting is a very important operation in formal linguistics, and since the early days of computer-processed texts, the convention in the formal sciences on the use of quotation marks in coordination with other marks of punctuation has changed from what may still be common in some journalistic settings, namely, don't quote it if the lexeme in question doesn't say it.  Nuff said.  Jon Awbrey 18:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on punctuation and quotation (p's & q's)

message: I edited the entry rather extensively to be clearer and more precise. Also, I reduced extra words here and there. I hope I improved it. 
1. In particular I didn't like the opening definition of the article, which read:
:Hypostatic abstraction in mathematical logic, also known as hypostasis or subjectal abstraction, is a formal operation that transforms an assertion to a relation; for example...
This isn't really accurate. An assertion is a proposition; in this case the assertion is "Honey is sweet". A relation is a two-place predicate; in this case the relation is "possesses" (or "has"). Calling the statement "Honey possesses sweetness" a relation is confusing for people that know a little logic. 
It would be more accurate to say, for example, that hypostasis converts an attribution to a relationship. 
However, this is just a feature of hypostasis and not a definition. It does not tell you what hypostasis is.
The real point is converting the predicate "sweet" into an abstract entity "sweetness". My definition says this precisely, although I admit the sentence is now a little long for a reader who is not familiar with the terminology of mathematical logic.
2. The sentence about Peirce now reads:
:As Peirce describes it, the main point about the formal operation of hypostatic abstraction, insofar as it operates on formal linguistic expressions, is that it converts an adjective or predicate into an extra subject, thus increasing by one the number of "subject" slots -- called the arity or adicity -- of the main predicate.
My intention was to improve the wording without changing the thesis of the sentence, which appears to be that the main point of Peirce's definition is the -arity increase. But is this really true? Should it receive this emphasis?
3. I edited the sentence starting with "grammatical trace" rather than deleting it because I liked the metaphor of precipitation. But I have to admit I didn't completely understand where this sentence was going, so maybe
someone else can take a look at it.
4. The rest of the changes were cosmetic as far as I can tell.
-- 84.227.9.55 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I created the previous version of the first sentence to replace a terrible previous version (which nevertheless included enough information to explain the concept), and wasn't still sure that it was correct. That's the good thing about wiki, the final result can be better than the sum of all editors' knowledge. I've just reordered and tweaked it a bit to make it have shorter sentences. I find this and your other edits an improvement, though I can't be sure about how to solve your doubts either. Diego (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited entry for clarity, precision, and expression