Talk:Q417202

pyrochlore (Q417202) -> mineral group (Q1936581) -> group (Q16887380) -> second-order class (Q24017414) -> third-order class (Q24017465) -> fourth-order class (Q24027474) -> fixed-order class (Q23959932) -> class (Q23960977) -> variable-order class (Q23958852) -> class (Q23960977) ...? --Fractaler (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pyrochlore supergroup (Q3977901) -> pyrochlore (Q417202) -> some minerals

Pyrochlore mineral group is a group of valid minerals. Check mindat.org or mineralienatlas.de --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now: pyrochlore (Q417202) is mineral group (Q1936581). mineral group (Q1936581) is group (Q16887380), etc. --Fractaler (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Pyrochlore, romeite, betafite, microlite were once valid minerals. But the IMA-CNMNC (International Mineralogical Association - Commission on new minerals, nomenclature and classification) redefined the whole supergroup. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pyrochlore (Q417202) is mineral group (Q1936581). mineral group (Q1936581) is group (Q16887380),group (Q16887380) is ...class (Q23960977). So pyrochlore (Q417202) is class (Q23960977)?18:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As I understand meta groups are abstract units. They are needed for the structural integrity of the databank. You are looking in the wrong direction. Pyrochlore is a subclass of pyrochlore supergroup (IMA Master List of Valid Minerals). Pyrochlore links to many valid minerals.

Universe > Via Lactea > Solar System > Earth > Earth's crust > geological unit > geological formation > rocks > mineral classification > oxide mineral class (Strunz) > pyrochlore supergroup > pyrochlore group > valid minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What graph should this structural integrity of the databank have? A physical object must be an abstract object? hydropyrochlore (Q3787816), for example, is an abstract object? hydropyrochlore (Q3787816) is mineralogy (Q83353) (mineral classification)? hydropyrochlore (Q3787816) is "minerals & nonminerals"? hydropyrochlore (Q3787816) is "mineral or nonmineral"? --Fractaler (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hydropyrochlore is an approved mineral. It has an type material, it is not an abstract object. Mathematics is an abstraction. Hydropyrochlore belongs to the pyrochlore mineral group, which belongs to the pyrochlore supergroup, which belongs to the oxide class of minerals (mineral classification). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right! hydropyrochlore (Q3787816) is not an abstract object. But now: hydropyrochlore (Q3787816) -> pyrochlore (Q417202) ->mineral group (Q1936581) -> group (Q16887380) -> class (Q5127848) -> abstract entity (Q7184903). Now hydropyrochlore (Q3787816) is abstract entity (Q7184903)! It is due to the presence of original research in Wikidata a discussion was started on the example of musician (Q639669). And to that discussion, we can add a lot of similar (like this for hydropyrochlore (Q3787816), etc.). --Fractaler (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not hydropyrochlore that it is an abstract object. But wikidata itself is an abstraction and a class (Q23960977). Mineralogy, knowledge and minerals, are concepts that only exist in our brains. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said about item hydropyrochlore (Q3787816). What item do you mean when said "It is not hydropyrochlore that it is an abstract object"? --Fractaler (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one hydropyrochlore (Q3787816), a valid mineral by the IMA-CNMNC.

The absolute truth is not available. There is only a subjective truth available. It changes with every age: Aristotles, Naturalis Historia, Systema Naturae, Encyclopædia Britannica, WD. Knowledge is based on conventions (dictionaries) and concepts (libraries & schools). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Q3787816 (hydropyrochlore) is a valid mineral by the IMA-CNMNC. A valid mineral by the IMA-CNMNC is not an abstract object. But WD said: hydropyrochlore is abstract entity (Q7184903). Make sure that this is an objective fact can any navigator that simply passes through the links from above (by Breadcrumb navigation (Q846205) tool). --Fractaler (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the backbone of WD: group (Q16887380) -> second-order class (Q24017414) -> third-order class (Q24017465) -> fourth-order class (Q24027474) -> fixed-order class (Q23959932) -> class (Q23960977) -> variable-order class (Q23958852) -> class (Q23960977). WD, conventions and concepts are abstract. WD needs an unifying principle. But the basic knowledge is not about the unifying principle, it is about the laws of nature and its hierarchy. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unifying principle is the absolute truth and its two poles (spiritual): God and his enemy. We can not understand the absolute truth, only a relative one. So do not dig so deep. Abstraction is a tool. We transform the laws of nature and matter into an abstraction. And so, our mind is able to compute with these abstractions. Read an introduction to databanks, stay humble and sleep in peace. It is not worth it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ie, these cycles/loops (class (Q23960977) -> variable-order class (Q23958852) -> class (Q23960977) ...) - is the backbone of WD? WD, conventions and concepts are abstract? Wikidata (Q2013) also is abstract entity (Q7184903)? The unifying principle is the absolute truth and its two poles (spiritual): God and his enemy? After Occam's razor (Q131012) we have just "God (Q190)" and opposite of (P461) "absence (Q19829125) of God (Q190)". "his enemy" is just "Also known as". Abstraction is a tool? WD said: abstraction (Q8184400) is process (Q3249551). And abstraction (Q673661) is mental process (Q2626870) --Fractaler (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our mind and a pc are digital and compute numbers. If the input is crap (Earth is flat), then the output will be crap too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I immediately showed this on the example of a real object at the input, which at the output becomes abstract. --Fractaler (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]