Talk:weak cardinality

The Beard and Lozada definition, "Formally, a variable is weakly cardinal if and only if no physical predictions will change when x is replaced with x + C where C is a constant." seems to differ from Georgescu-Roegen's in important ways.

weak cardinality
Any takers? Term exists - but proper definition seems to be about Turing machines etc. SemperBlotto 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The results from the field of logic (i.e., about Turing machines, etc.) seem to be weak cardinality theorem, a weak theorem about cardinality, so irrelevant here. This is not my specialty, but that's the way it seems. But there are a number of results not from logic, with some other meaning, although I don't know whether it's the one in our entry. To search, try using theorem as a stop word.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the definition we have is correct, though it's possible there are other definitions as well. —Ruakh TALK 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The talk page has the Beard and Lozada definition, "Formally, a variable is weakly cardinal if and only if no physical predictions will change when x is replaced with x + C where C is a constant." This sounds more precise to me - is it a valid alternative definition, or just a more precise way of saying the same thing?  In either case, time seems to be a good example, but not temperature where a genuine absolute zero does exist.    D b f  i  r  s   23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ... (later) ... and there is a completely different definition for L-fuzzy hybrid sets, but this is just the adjective weak describing the noun cardinality. In fact nearly all the references I can find are sum of parts, and the ones that define a separate concept are so vague that it is difficult to justify a Wiktionary entry.    D b f  i  r  s   00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)