Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Like Tree12Likes
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 2 Post By KALSTER
  • 2 Post By wegs
  • 3 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Searching for a word

  1. #1 Searching for a word 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Hi,
    I'm searching for a word/term to express something.

    The closest term that I could find is "Quasi", but according to etymology it's translates "close to", but what I need is "exactly there" and not close by.
    To exemplify: "quasi-equilibrium" is defined as "A process is called a quasi-equilibrium process if the intermediate steps in the process are all close to equilibrium."
    I need to define "quasi" related to equilibrium as a point in which is perfect equilibrium even if that may or not may be possible in nature.
    If I define quasi in relations with "dimensions": "quasi-dimensional" it will mean that quasi is a central point to any n dimensions. (abstracting that there is no absolute point of reference).

    I don't need this term necessary in physics, those were just examples. If I use "quasi" on it's own it will mean what I want it to mean?
    Or, the question for this topic: there is another English (or not) term that I can use?

    Thanks!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    If I use "quasi" on it's own it will mean what I want it to mean?
    Er...
    it's translates "close to"
    Try congruent.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Why not just say "at absolute equilibrium"?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Why not just say "at absolute equilibrium"?
    Or "at equilibrium", perhaps.
    Ascended likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    perfect, exact, precisely, ...

    Exact Synonyms, Exact Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
    babe and wegs like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    No, thanks anyway.
    "congruent" may not work, it relates more to trigonometry.
    "at absolute equilibrium" - it will be preferred on one term. I thought there is a term for what I wanted to express and I didn't wanted to "re-invent" the wheel.

    I'm "working" (on amateur level) about "De-Construction and reconstruction of concepts". It seems that our mind works with concepts even if they aren't properly defined.
    My hypothesis is that all concepts derive from one central concept; an ultimate concept if you will; which by definition is not a concept.
    Because we don't have I definition for it a term was needed and I think that "quasi" still remains a better term (I will redefine the term - for me of-course).

    Short explanation. It's based on complementarity:
    If "White" were to be this "central concept" it will have braked in: Red, Yellow, Blue; but also in the principles involved in deconstruction. So it will be:
    White = R+Y+B+ n Principles. So, in order not to lose things on the way, When you define Red for instance you have: R=Y+B+ nP (White). I think that this is the way our mind works; it has standalone definitions for everything.
    Anyway, so I guess if I stick with "quasi" is better. In the sense that "quasi" would be already central, and if you use it in "quasi-equilibrium" it translates "close to" because you don't account for all the principles involved there.

    I don't know what sense it makes; it's a work in progress (never to be concluded maybe). Also I'm wondering what makes the difference between concepts and notions. Notions may be "partials" of concepts?
    This work has been done before? It's a clear definition for concepts and eventually notions? Not by description I mean, So, I won't struggle to "re-invent the wheel".
    It's seems to me, that this is not the case.

    So, in this light I think I will stick to "quasi". The question wasn't for nothing. I really thought it may already be a better suited word. But it appears - not.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by hyperion1is; August 4th, 2013 at 05:17 PM. Reason: Misspelling: is De-construction and re-construction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,450
    Hey there, how about "complete equilibrium", as in having all the necessary steps, suggesting there isn't anything lacking or any further to go, the full picture. Quasi is more suggestive of incompleteness, of further to do go and a few steps short.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    does not "equilibrium" speak for itself without a qualifier?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Hey there, how about "complete equilibrium", as in having all the necessary steps, suggesting there isn't anything lacking or any further to go, the full picture. Quasi is more suggestive of incompleteness, of further to do go and a few steps short.
    Hi Ascended,

    Actually you make my point about "quasi". What I want to suggest through "quasi", related to my previous post, "the central concept" which is not a concept, because of this, it has no definition (it's hard for us people to define). It's a "Whole" from which all concepts derive (through a "set of rules" if you will) and has only an abstract definition which can't be given explicitly. Maybe after I figure things out "the deconstruction and re-construction of concepts" maybe then it will have an "explicit" definition. So, if "quasi" presents it's self as an abstract term is better for me.

    Don't get me wrong. I accept opinions which differs from my own and any help is good.
    This is why you didn't comment on my Scientific Theory of the human Psyche ?
    I can accept critique. And if this is an example for you that I don't please give me another chance
    The "theory" is a word salad ? This is my first, and only, work and I can't get everything right from the first attempt. I hope, that at least a thing or two I did it right. And I can improve on it.
    Thanks for your feedback.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    does not "equilibrium" speak for itself without a qualifier?
    It may not, this is why I need "De-Construction and reconstruction of concepts"
    The hypothesis is that "Quasi" is the tip of the pyramid in an hierarchical system and concepts follow down, with levels: first level, second level and so on.
    So for the "equilibrium" to speak for itself, first it must be identified in this hierarchical system and interpreted in the context. I don't know where this work will lead to. It may reveal that on the consciousness level we use "notions" (meaning partials) instead of concepts (whole).
    So in my example: R=Y+B+ nP (White) provides context. You can't just say "Red", it doesn't mean anything without context. Anyway, I will do the work, and if I "crack the code" I will comeback with results. In the meanwhile it just word salad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    If "White" were to be this "central concept" it will have braked in: Red, Yellow, Blue
    But it isn't.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Hey there, how about "complete equilibrium", as in having all the necessary steps, suggesting there isn't anything lacking or any further to go, the full picture. Quasi is more suggestive of incompleteness, of further to do go and a few steps short.
    Hi Ascended,

    Actually you make my point about "quasi". What I want to suggest through "quasi", related to my previous post, "the central concept" which is not a concept, because of this, it has no definition (it's hard for us people to define). It's a "Whole" from which all concepts derive (through a "set of rules" if you will) and has only an abstract definition which can't be given explicitly. Maybe after I figure things out "the deconstruction and re-construction of concepts" maybe then it will have an "explicit" definition. So, if "quasi" presents it's self as an abstract term is better for me.

    Don't get me wrong. I accept opinions which differs from my own and any help is good.
    This is why you didn't comment on my Scientific Theory of the human Psyche ?
    I can accept critique. And if this is an example for you that I don't please give me another chance
    The "theory" is a word salad ? This is my first, and only, work and I can't get everything right from the first attempt. I hope, that at least a thing or two I did it right. And I can improve on it.
    Thanks for your feedback.
    What about just "existence"?
    Ascended and babe like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ...matter and pixie dust
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    perfect, exact, precisely, ...

    Exact Synonyms, Exact Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

    I thought precisely, as well.

    'at equilibrium' like one of the posters here suggested would be just fine. Sometimes, we get the sense that we need to become wordy in order to convey a message. Sometimes, less is more.
    Ascended and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Sometimes, we get the sense that we need to become wordy in order to convey a message. Sometimes, less is more.
    In the late 1960s a read a book review in the Observer, a quality British Sunday newspaper. The book reviewed was called The Art of Brevity. The review was this - Excellent.
    Ascended, Dywyddyr and wegs like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    ]What about just "existence"?
    Related to existence it can be said that something exist or doesn't exist. (so not so much "unbiased")
    I'm looking for a term to define something (even abstract) and not a definition for a definition.
    Like a name for a person. A name identifies you but doesn't defines you.
    I think someone suggested here "central", this could work. Which works best in the following equation?
    R=Y+B+ nP (Quasi) ; or
    R=Y+B+ nP (Central)

    Once you have a term you stop, and you don't try to associate it with something else. If people will look for a word for "Central" will go into philosophy and religion maybe. "God" may be a word for it because it can be viewed as central, and this go on and on.
    I didn't proposed a word game here
    No word will math what I need, (it seems) and in this case an approximation is OK or I make up another word. The term will get it's own definition (it's own meaning) "inside" the theory/ or model.

    I hope this makes sense.
    Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    If "White" were to be this "central concept" it will have braked in: Red, Yellow, Blue
    But it isn't.
    White as a central concept? It may very well not be. But it can be used as a correlation. (or analogy if you want.




    In the above image, you can position anywhere in relation to the center and will be the same thing (symmetry). If you position somewhere related to the center, you will not see "White".
    If you position your-self in the center you will see nothing. If you could look at all the spectrum at once you could see either "White" or something you can't explain in words (no definition).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hyperion1is View Post
    White as a central concept? It may very well not be. But it can be used as a correlation. (or analogy if you want.




    In the above image, you can position anywhere in relation to the center and will be the same thing (symmetry). If you position somewhere related to the center, you will not see "White".
    If you position your-self in the center you will see nothing. If you could look at all the spectrum at once you could see either "White" or something you can't explain in words (no definition).
    Is that supposed to mean something? It appears to show a complete lack of understanding of colour theory....
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Is that supposed to mean something? It appears to show a complete lack of understanding of colour theory....
    No, you don't need it to take it so ad-literal. Is not about colors, is about complementarity. The fact that our mind "organizes" information in complementary patterns either complementarity exists in nature or not.
    Recent research take into account that complementarity may exist in nature and may be an Universal.

    "For Bohr, this was an indication that the principle of complementarity, a principle that he had previously known to appear extensively in other intellectual disciplines but which did not appear in classical physics, should be adopted as a universal principle.”
    From here Complementarity (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But this is not what this topic is about.
    Cheers!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,029
    I think you're confusing two separate uses of the/a similar word.
    I'm not entirely convinced (in fact I'd go so far as to say decidedly unconvinced) that "complementary" with regard to patterns is the same as (or even particularly directly equivalent to) complementarity in the physics sense.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Searching for the ultimate man
    By CNSZU in forum Biology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 21st, 2011, 05:42 PM
  2. Searching for unpublished studies
    By Prometheus in forum Biology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 20th, 2011, 11:18 PM
  3. Holographic searching...
    By iisjreg in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 15th, 2007, 01:32 PM
  4. Searching for GRE Physics
    By Gladiator in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2007, 02:13 PM
  5. Searching for Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense
    By sandra17 in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2006, 12:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •