Disputatio:Theoria copiarum

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pagina honorata Theoria copiarum fuit pagina mensis Aprilis 2017.

Fons tituli? copia vs. classis?[fontem recensere]

Is there a basis for the choice of word copia for "set"? The article itself doesn't explicitly cite a source for the word choice.

As far as I'm aware, the meaning of the word copia is "an abundance", "plenty", "multitude". (It also has additional meanings, not relevant for the topic at hand, such as "wealth", "troops", etc.) While I can see the plausibility of calling "set" a synonym, there's still a gap between copia and "set".

Peano used the term classis in his treatise Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita (1889). That treatise has the rare distinction of not just being notable as a piece of scholarship, but also being actually written in Latin. It gives classis an authoritative claim against "noli fingere".

(Note that I don't entirely advocate for classis. Arithmetices principia pre-dates the distinction between "set" and "class" becoming settled terminology. Currently Classis (mathematica) simply redirects to Copia, and there is no article for "class". If Vicipaedia were to make the distinction with separate words and separate articles, then I would want classis to mean "class" instead of "set". But of course that brings us back to the issue of what to call "set".)

Are there sources attesting to copia, of greater or comparable credibility? If there aren't, then I would propose renaming theoria copiarum to theoria classium.

--Adumbrativus (disputatio) 05:54, 27 Iulii 2019 (UTC)

The talk page for copia also asks whether there's a source for the term (and that question goes back to 2010), and I assume this page took the word from that one. Consistency is at least worth something! But I think copia is a reasonable choice, pace Peano; your observation that he didn't distinguish "sets" and "classes" is important, and we really should have a page on classes. Note, too, that we've used the term copia in this sense all over the place, not just in the titles of these two pages, so even if we did change it, it may never be completely eradicated. What do others think? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:07, 30 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
Here's an attestation from 2006, several years before Vicipaedia's article came into being: YLE Colloquia Latina. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:53, 30 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
That's useful! But is it authoritative? It is a forum, after all, not the actual Nuntii. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:38, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
A set is a 'combination of elements'. Kindly consider 'coetus'( without the sexual overtones) and 'complexio'.--Jondel (disputatio) 02:12, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
I've always thought set theory was one of the sexiest parts of mathematics :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:19, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking that coetus would be associated with coitus and coitus interruptus. Whatever. I love math itself. I do mental calculations, albeit a different discipline. I know how to get a root number without using a calculator etc.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:24, 19 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
You're right: whether it's spelled with -oe- or -oi-, it's the verbal noun from co-ire, and the sense is, I suppose, not a big stretch from English "going together" (or "going out together"). So you're proposing that a set is "a bunch of elements that go together," which makes sense. But we do already have an article coitus: it might be confusing to use the same word in such disparate senses. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:59, 19 Augusti 2019 (UTC)