Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I have added cross-links with judgment and made infinite judgment a redirect (omitting an “e”) (also made redirects for the plural versions)
Why omit the e'?
Judgement’ is the traditional spelling. ;-)
Similarly, being born and raised in America, I write ’acknowledgment’, not ’acknowledgement’.
In HowTo, it is advised to use American spelling in page titles (in the text body, spell whichever way you prefer). I think the original reason given was that of the three original Café founders, John and Urs use American English spellings (and David British); the current reason focuses on Urs: “Most of this is written by Urs Schreiber, who use American English spelling.”
Although I’m not sure of the extent that’s true (I thought I recently saw Urs write ’neighbourhood’, for example).
As English comes from England, I do feel the Americanisation of spelling is usually not necessarily a good thing,Putting that aside, however, there is one solid point here and that is that both spellings are being used in this page and that does seem a bit odd. (NB ’Americanisation’ not ’Americanization’, and again ;-))
As English comes from England, I do feel the Americanisation of spelling is usually not necessarily a good thing
There is an awful lot that could be said on that score, but let us please not go there.
both spellings are being used in this page and that does seem a bit odd
Actually, that both American and British spellings appear on the same page can be frequently observed throughout the nLab. It can look a little odd, yes, but I’ve gotten used to it. (I’m not in favor, or favour, of the alternative which is to enforce one or the other.)
I barely even notice any more which spelling is being used in anything I read. I think rather than regarding one spelling as “American” and one as “British” (what about all the other English-speaking countries?) it would be more 21st-century to regard them all as “correct variants”. And now that we have redirects, there’s not even an especially compelling reason to choose one over the other in page titles.
Still off the opening topic, but I guess I can’t resist. :-)
what about all the other English-speaking countries
Correct me if I’m wrong, somebody, but I thought most British Commonwealth (now apparently called Commonwealth of Nations) countries use spellings that are closer to those used in the UK. I was just using “British English” as a rubric for those.
it would be more 21st-century to regard them all as “correct variants”
I agree! Live and let live.
Live and let live.
Todd, I was not suggesting otherwise, merely teasing you all. ;-) I certainly was not intending to proclaim a “judgement” or “judgment”.
Didn’t Ænglisc come from the low countries/northern Europe? Them foreigners coming here and giving us their subtly inflected language… >:-(
To come back on topic: all I meant to do in #2 is recall that for every entry you create, you should please check to add redirects to all possible spelling variants that people might use, as well as to their plural versions. This is independent of whether you yourself plan to use any of these spelling variants or plurals. Instead it us to serve the robustness of the Lab link structure, as it guarantees that other users find your entry and don’t accidentally create duplicates, just with different spelling.
Urs: your point was well made. Unfortunately a contributor does not always see all the alternative spellings. (e.g. the one in question here ‘judgment’ was one that I have rarely seen.) Plurals are, of course, simpler to handle.
Thanks,
Tim
Related work by van Lambalgen (most well known for work in computability theory and randomness) and Achourioti.
”Kant considers his Critique of Pure Reason to be founded on the act of judging and the different forms of judgement, hence, take pride of place in his argumentation. The consensus view is that this aspect of the Critique of Pure Reason is a failure because Kant’s logic is far too weak to bear such a weight. Here we show that the consensus view is mistaken and that Kant’s logic should be identified with geometric logic, a fragment of intuitionistic logic of great foundational significance.”
A Formalisation of Kant’s Transcendental Logic
”Although Kant envisaged a prominent role for logic in the argumentative structure of his Critique of pure reason [12], logicians and philosophers have generally judged Kant’s logic negatively. What Kant called ‘general’ or ‘formal’ logic has been dismissed as a fairly arbitrary subsystem of first order logic, and what he called ‘transcendental logic’ is considered to be not a logic at all: no syntax, no semantics, no definition of validity. Against this, we argue that Kant’s ‘transcendental logic’ is a logic in the strict formal sense, albeit with a semantics and a definition of validity that are vastly more complex than that of first order logic. The main technical application of the formalism developed here is a formal proof that Kant’s Table of Judgements in §9 of the Critique of pure reason, is indeed, as Kant claimed, complete for the kind of semantics he had in mind. This result implies that Kant’s ’general’ logic is after all a distinguished subsystem of first order logic, namely what is known as geometric logic.”
Thanks for reminding me of these! Actually, Peter Wolfendale had made a similar remark on another thread . For the time being I still try to figure out what Kant had on his mind but it certainly would be nice if someone could add a section on the Achourioti-Lambalgen approach.
1 to 15 of 15