Dominant group/Rigorous definition

< Dominant group

What is a rigorous definition? And, specifically where dominant group is concerned, what is a rigorous definition of dominant group?

With dominant group appearing in almost every field of written human endeavor, especially primary sources, usually with what appears to be a relatively unique definition or usage, is a rigorous definition even possible?

Although primary sources are usually not read at a secondary education level, dominant group and some of its relative synonyms occur in secondary education resources such as Wikipedia.

Axiomatic definition

A rigorous definition fulfills the axioms that define a definition so that a generalized definition can be defined using an appropriate function that fulfills the axioms. Having met these axioms as a criteria of a general definition, the definition is said to be a rigorous definition.

An axiomatic definition is a rigorous definition: "the definition must clearly state the rules that are considered as binding, and on the other hand give the implementor enough freedom to achieve efficiency by leaving certain less important aspects undefined."[1]

Synonyms

The term dominant group appears to be used to identify entities of importance. The genera differentia for possible relative synonyms of dominant group fall into the following set of orderable pairs:

Relative synonyms for dominant group[2]
Synonym for "dominant" Category Number Category Title Synonym for "group" Category Number Catgeory Title
“superior” 36 SUPERIORITY "arrangement" 60 ARRANGEMENT
“influential” 171 INFLUENCE "class" 61 CLASSIFICATION
“musical note” 462 HARMONICS "assembly" 74 ASSEMBLAGE
“most important” 670 IMPORTANCE "size" 194 SIZE
“governing” 739 GOVERNMENT "painting", "grouping" 572 ART
"master" 747 MASTER "association", "set" 786 ASSOCIATION
----- --- ------- "sect" 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS

'Orderable' means that any synonym from within the first category can be ordered with any synonym from the second category to form an alternate term for dominant group; for example, "superior class", "influential sect", "master assembly", "most important group", and "dominant painting". "Dominant" falls into category 171. "Group" is in category 61. Further, any word which has its most or much more common usage within these categories may also form an alternate term, such as "ruling group", where "ruling" has its most common usage in category 739, or "dominant party", where "party" is in category 74. "Taxon" or "taxa" are like "species" in category 61. "Society" is in category 786 so there is a "dominant society".

When one or two orderable pairs are produced, the results are

  1. one pair - relative synonym,
  2. one pair in which the first or second category has each of two from a category - definition, and
  3. two pairs from two to four categories - definition.

Meaningless dominant group

Each subject area within which the term dominant group is used has the same problem: "unless and until a rigorous definition of the term 'dominant group' is rendered, the argument fails to establish its conclusion due to the fact that one of its premises is meaningless."[3]

Test

Def. a category synonym for "group", including "group", and a category synonym for "dominant", including "dominant", that as one or two orderable pairs has only the properties of two pairs: i.e., from two to four categories [exclusive], or one pair in which the first or second category has up to each of two from a category is called a rigorous definition of dominant group.

Research

Hypothesis:

  1. Dominant group has a rigorous metadefinition that accommodates all known primary source (original research) uses.

Control groups

This is an image of a Lewis rat. Credit: Charles River Laboratories.

The findings demonstrate a statistically systematic change from the status quo or the control group.

“In the design of experiments, treatments [or special properties or characteristics] are applied to [or observed in] experimental units in the treatment group(s).[4] In comparative experiments, members of the complementary group, the control group, receive either no treatment or a standard treatment.[5]"[6]

Proof of concept

Def. a “short and/or incomplete realization of a certain method or idea to demonstrate its feasibility"[7] is called a proof of concept.

Def. evidence that demonstrates that a concept is possible is called proof of concept.

The proof-of-concept structure consists of

  1. background,
  2. procedures,
  3. findings, and
  4. interpretation.[8]

See also

References

  1. ↑ C. A. R. Hoare and N. Wirth (1973). "An axiomatic definition of the programming language PASCAL". Acta Informatica 2 (4): 335-55. doi:10.1007/BF00289504. http://www.springerlink.com/content/lk30hp0718778688/. Retrieved 2011-09-16.
  2. ↑ Peter Mark Roget (1969). Lester V. Berrey and Gorton Carruth. ed. Roget's International Thesaurus, third edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. pp. 1258.
  3. ↑ Janet L. Travis (September 1971). "A Criticism of the Use of the Concept of "Dominant Group" in Arguments for Evolutionary Progressivism". Philosophy of Science 38 (3): 369-75. http://www.jstor.org/pss/186010. Retrieved 2011-07-27.
  4. ↑ Klaus Hinkelmann, Oscar Kempthorne (2008). Design and Analysis of Experiments, Volume I: Introduction to Experimental Design (2nd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-72756-9. http://books.google.com/?id=T3wWj2kVYZgC&printsec=frontcover.
  5. ↑ R. A. Bailey (2008). Design of comparative experiments. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68357-9. http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521683579.
  6. ↑ "Treatment and control groups, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. May 18, 2012. Retrieved 2012-05-31.
  7. ↑ "proof of concept, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. November 10, 2012. Retrieved 2013-01-13.
  8. ↑ Ginger Lehrman and Ian B Hogue, Sarah Palmer, Cheryl Jennings, Celsa A Spina, Ann Wiegand, Alan L Landay, Robert W Coombs, Douglas D Richman, John W Mellors, John M Coffin, Ronald J Bosch, David M Margolis (August 13, 2005). "Depletion of latent HIV-1 infection in vivo: a proof-of-concept study". Lancet 366 (9485): 549-55. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67098-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894952/. Retrieved 2012-05-09.

External links

This is a research project at http://en.wikiversity.org

Development status: this resource is experimental in nature.
Educational level: this is a research resource.
Resource type: this resource is an article.
Resource type: this resource contains a lecture or lecture notes.
Subject classification: this is a semantics resource.
Subject classification: this is a terminology resource.
This article is issued from Wikiversity - version of the Monday, February 15, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.