Talk:causal system

Request for verification
"A system that operates by causality". I can't believe that this is the definition. OneLook dictionaries and glossaries provide no help. Actual usage would be a help. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems like pure SOP; it's a system (a mapping from input signals to output signals) that is causal (no value of the output signal depends on any later value of the input signal), as opposed to one that is "non-causal", "acausal", or "anticipatory". Systems that operate on signals in real time are of course causal, but many systems either operate on complete time-series that have already been gathered (so that an output value can legitimately depend on a "later" input value), or on a non-temporal dimension (for example, a "blur" effect operating on a digital image will depend on input pixels in both directions, no matter which direction is taken as "previous"-ward and which as "next"-ward). —Ruakh TALK 23:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we had reasoned application of CFI to rely on, maybe SoPitude would be fatal. But the Pawley vaccine and translation-target bias render virtually all multiword terms entered immune even non-idiomatic non-constituent entries. And then there are WikiGazeteer entries and typographical deviants. We haven't even cleaned up our Webster's 1913 entries, let alone provided audio pronunciations, etymologies, usage examples for many entries; let alone citations for senses in basic entries. Laziness seems the only force powerful enough to offset our slogan.
 * Hence, RfV first. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Yet again) "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." I can't guess the meaning; the only problem is, having read the definition, I don't know what it means. Explain how this doesn't meet CFI please. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Because it isn't attested. This is RfV. I am simply looking for cites that support the definition. Perhaps someone, apparently neither of us and not Ruakh, understands this definition well enough to cite it. That is, it looks as if we might have a meaningless entry, ie, one worse than worthless, because one user might waste one second on it. There are very many ostensibly meaningful terms that don't actually have an attestable meaning that is not SoP based on definitions of the component terms. If this project is going to be wasting time on being some kind of colossal translator's cheat sheet, I'll be opting out and using OneLook for my own reference needs, knowing that, if only Wiktionary has an entry, it is highly likely to be non-idiomatic and not worth the click.
 * For this entry, there are nevertheless a few possibilities. If someone does cite it, perhaps we can make the definition better. If someone claims to cite it, perhaps we have to argue that the cites don't support it or any single definition that we can imagine. Perhaps the only attestable definition is SoP. Perhaps someone will produce the obvious non-SoP definition that is in "widespread use" that we and the other OneLook dictionaries just missed. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. —Ruakh TALK 16:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)