Compatibility

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is compatibility? How should it be defined?

The notion of compatibility plays a central role in scientonomy. As such, providing it with a proper definition is a matter of considerable importance.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available definition of the term. It is defined as: "The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic."

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this term (it includes all the instances when the term was accepted as a part of a community's taxonomy):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy28 December 2018The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.Yes

All Theories

The following definitions of the term have been suggested:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.2018
If a definition of this term is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following definitions of the term have been accepted:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyCompatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)3 June 2020

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this term:
ModificationCommunityDate SuggestedSummaryVerdictVerdict RationaleDate Assessed
Sciento-2018-0015Scientonomy28 December 2018Accept the definition of compatibility, as the ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Also replace the zeroth law with the compatibility corollary.AcceptedWhile the modification induced a few comments on the encyclopedia, it became accepted as a result of discussions that took place mostly offline. It was agreed that the modification "comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions" in the current zeroth which doesn't "say much above and beyond what is already implicit in the notion of compatibility"c1 as it "is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility".c2 It was also noted that the proposed "definition of compatibility criteria... captures the gist of the concept as it has been used in our community".c3 It was also agreed that "the compatibility corollary follows from this definition".c4 c5 Finally, the community accepted that the definition and the corollary "recover the content of the Zeroth Law".c63 June 2020

Current Definition

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018).

Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) states: "The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic."

Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018).png

This definition of compatibility captures the main gist of the notion as it was originally intended by Harder and Barseghyan - the idea that two elements are compatible when they can coexist within the same mosaic.

Ontology

Existence

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted claims concerning the existence of Compatibility.

Disjointness

In Scientonomy, no classes are currently accepted as disjoint with Compatibility.

Subtypes

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted subtypes of Compatibility.

Supertypes

In Scientonomy, the following supertype of Compatibility is currently accepted:

Associations

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted associations of Compatibility.


If a question concerning the ontology of compatibility is missing, please add it here.

Dynamics

If a question concerning the dynamics of compatibility is missing, please add it here.