Talk:Matter (chemistry)

Start of new article

Beginning an article on 'matter', from a general chemistry point of view. Anthony.Sebastian 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing

As for me, the "thing" section is a too long digression from chemistry. Surely the natural language cannot support a "mathematics-like" tree of definitions (see for instance Theory (mathematics)#Defined or undefined), but this is not a matter of "Matter"... Boris Tsirelson 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Boris. Terrific article you directed me to. I keyed on:

"In the axiomatic approach, notions are a tower of defined notions, grounded on the basis of more fundamental notions called undefined primitives. If all defined notions are forgotten they surely can be restored from the undefined primitives. The undefined primitives are sparse and simple, not to be forgotten...The lack of definition of a primitive notion does not mean lack of any information about this notion. Axioms provide such information, to be used in proofs. Informal (intuitive) understanding of a primitive notion is communicated in a natural language. This information cannot be used in proofs, but is instrumental when guessing what to prove, how to prove, how to apply proved theorems and, last but not least, what to postulate by axioms."

As I see it, semantic and the undefined primitives correspond quite well. And, yes, natural language it appears can support a "tree of definitions", grounded on about 60 semantic primitives. It would be interesting to learn about the cognitive origins of mathematical axioms and semantic primes. See Semantic primes, especially the references cited. The semanticists cited give many examples of words defined solely in terms of the semantic primitives.

As for the 'Thing' section, I'm struck by how commonly chemists use 'thing' in defining matter, always taking 'thing' as an undefined primitive. I feel the section is not so much a digression from chemistry as laying a foundation for understanding how chemists perhaps non-consciously define matter, the central concern of chemistry. I will give this more thought, in view of your calling my attention to the undefined primitives of mathematics. Anthony.Sebastian 00:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Antony. I have read "Semantic primes" with a keen interest. This is a good example of the interdisciplinary exchange stimulated by CZ. I also inserted a link to "Semantic primes" into "Theory". However, I am skeptical about a mathematics-like backbone of natural language(s). It seems to me that the transition from the primitive notions to a "derived" notion involves some amount of the same non-verbal understanding that is the source of the primitives. Thus, "derived" notions are only partly derived, and partly primitive. (Well, some notions are 99% derived and only 1% primitive; but some are 70% derived, I guess.) You see (from my experiment with Google...) that the notion "line", when defined by a non-mathematician, is far from 100% derived. Boris Tsirelson 07:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Hope your "terrific" means more "marvelous" than "terrifying" :-) Boris Tsirelson 08:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I have to side with Boris' comment at the begin of this section. A user who wants to learn of the chemist's notion of matter will not be interested in a (phislosophical, semantical) discussion of "thing", or -- I want to add -- in the physicist's notion of mass. Moreover, it will not help him to understand chemistry, rather puzzle him. --Peter Schmitt 12:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)