Talk:Mutually exclusive events
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
I added the section about the comparison of mutual exclusivity with collective exhaustion. I did the same thing with the wikipedia stub on collectively exhaustive and crossed referenced both articles with each other. I am not a professional mathematician, so if I have made an error in this update please correct it and I'll have no worries.
I removed the stub tag from this article because the topic is narrow enough in scope to justify a very short entry. capitalist 03:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Shouldn't this be at Mutual exclusivity (obviously with a redirect from the current title) to conform to the guideline that article titles should be a noun rather than an adjective? Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Redirect_adjectives_to_nouns JulesH 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Collectively exhaustive should actually be collective exhaustion too. capitalist 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've made the change but I'm not sure what the "double redirect" issue is that I'm supposed to check for. capitalist 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Urggg ... "mutual exclusivity" and "collective exhaustion" really don't sound natural, and will need redirects or relabelling every time the terms are used. It would be better to call the articles "mutually exclusive events" and "collectively exhuastive events" - in the same way as we have prime number not "primeness", even and odd numbers not "evenness and oddness", finite set not "finiteness" etc. Gandalf61 11:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Done. I hope this is the last time I have to move these two articles; they're getting heavy! LOL capitalist 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] non-mathematical uses
What about (non-mathematical) uses of concepts that are (at least purportedly) mutually exclusive? Are happiness and sadness mutually exclusive? Is there any grounds for saying that they are?
For instance, the wikipedia article on Literal and figurative language states:
a sentence, "When I first saw her, my soul began to quiver," . . . might mean, "When I first saw her, I began to fall in love," or, "When I first saw her, I began to panic," or something else entirely. Whereas the ground's thirst can only sensibly refer to its dryness, the soul may quiver to represent a whole range of feelings, including mutually exclusive ones.
Does anyone know how to logically construe this mutual exclusivity?
Also, some will claim that the cardinal virtues (two of them are courage and temperance) are both conceptually exhaustive and mutualy exclusive, such that any other virtue is derivable from those four. Is this at all cogent?
Whoistheroach 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- These are still mathemetical questions. The question about happiness and sadness being ME is simply saying, "suppose we have a set, "H", which is comprised of all emotional states with the characteristic that they meet some specific definition of happiness. Further, suppose there is a set "S" which is comprised of all emotional states which meet some specific definition of sadness. Are H and S mutually exclusive sets?" The nature of the elements of the sets doesn't matter; it could be outcomes of a die roll, emotional states, my favorite meals, animals that are cute, or whatever. That doesn't change the mathematical nature of the concept of mutual exclusivity. capitalist 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
