text:
Talk:George Lakoff

Criticisms of Lakoff
I had added

 * In essence, what Lakoff states is that, "conservatives want the government to be your daddy and liberals want the government to be your mommy." Many libertarians feel that "government should treat you like an adult," and argue that this is the more healthy dynamic of a mature family.

It was removed for being POV and without external references. I totally understand the need for external references but POV? It's a criticism section and almost by definition has to be POV. I don't want to do a bunch of research for external references if its just going to be deleted because someone doesn't agree with it. Can someone clarify? -- Lawyer2b 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to have been written from someone with a rather odd take on Lakoff. I'm removing a number of passeges that do more harm than good, in addition to doing some reorganizing and rephrasing. A coherent explanation of Lakoff's actual ideas is needed, but I decided I couldn't attempt that before doing some housecleaning.

Here are some things removed:

 * [Lakoff is a] cognitive scientist well known for his unorthodox views of the scientific process, and its supposed central position in the culture of developed countries as an assumed neutral point of view.

Removed. Well known to whom? Although Lakoff may be a relativist in certain senses, I don't think Lakoff is an avid critic of the scientific process; without that process, his work is basically meaningless. And what does this have to do with developed vs non-developed countries?

 * He is, with Rafael E. Núñez, the primary proponent of the embodied mind thesis:

 * "We are neural beings," Lakoff states, "Our brains take their input from the rest of our bodies. What our bodies are like and how they function in the world thus structures the very concepts we can use to think. We cannot think just anything - only what our embodied brains permit."

Removed. First, I don't think Núñez and Lakoff are alone in advocating an "embodied mind thesis". Second, that quote is ok, but it would be much better if it said what book it was from. Finally, I'm not sure this is worth presenting in such a brief, sound-bite form.

 * Lakoff seems to discard falsifiability and some basic tenets of particle physics entirely. In particular, he asserts, in an idiosyncratic claim extending those published in "The Embodied Mind", that falsifiability itself can never be established by any reasonable method that would not rely ultimately on a shared human bias

This is incoherent. Falsifiability of what? Also, don't mention "particle physics" without explaining the connection; I feel this has been inserted only to add credibility to a weak argument.

 * "any question of math's being inherent in physical reality is moot, since there is no way to know whether or not it is."

Fine, but redundant.

 * Despite his attempts at some degree of scientific neutrality, his work shows (and to some extent even admits) the influence of his liberal (in his own sense) view of the world, and tends to be more palatable to those on the American political left.

Oops. I wrote that. It was only referring to Moral Politics, and should have been moved to its article.

 * Some members of the anti-globalization movement have been heavily influenced by Lakoff's work, perhaps as much as by that of fellow linguist Noam Chomsky.

Who? I don't see any obvious connections between Lakoff and the anti-globalization folks. Also, I'm curious: assuming there actually are such people inspired by Lakoff, do they actually have a clue what he is talking about?

 * Lakoff and Chomsky's respective views of linguistics are almost as different as can be.

I wrote that. I'd say it's true, but it doesn't fit with the current organization of the article, and it's kind of useless if it isn't fleshed out further.

--Ryguasu 23:10 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

Yup, still fighting against the mess that 24 created. Amazing how much damage can be done by a single individual. AxelBoldt 04:00 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

Changed the "Trivia" section which made Robin Lakoff sound trivial. --Dante Alighieri

I don't have any opinions about Robin Lakoff; I just thought it was kind of silly to be talking about husbands and wives of any sort in the introductory paragraph. Sorry. By the way, are you sure Robin and George are married? The dedication from my Where Mathematics Comes From says his wife is named Kathleen Frumkin. --Ryguasu 09:54 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

Well slap me silly... I guess I've been wrong all these years. :( Must be a coincidence then. I'm removing the link about Robin Lakoff from the George Lakoff page. And don't worry, I didn't think you were intentionally trivializing it, I just thought it was a less than ideal choice of words. :) --Dante Alighieri

Perhaps other people have made the same mistake; the situation certainly sounds plausible. In that case, it might make sense to put back the "trivia" section, and include the fact about who he isn't married to. =) Or maybe that is getting a bit too far afield for an encyclopedia.... --Ryguasu 10:01 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

I agree, that's a bit far afield... I must say, though, that I feel ESPECIALLY stupid seeing as how I attended UC Berkeley and took several courses in the Linguistics department. Sigh. --Dante Alighieri

 * It is my understanding that George and Robin Lakoff were once married and that they have been divorced for quite some time (at least 10 years or more). Mike Dillon 16:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Is there a source for that anywhere? I'm trying to update Robin Lakoff's page but I can't find any source besides Wikipedia that states that she and George Lakoff are now divorced. --Gobonkersnow

I'm trying to assess how idiosyncratic an understanding of Lakoff and Johnson's first book feminist Julie Nelson has. It's a little hard for me to check, since I don't have the book. The passage in question is:

 * That is, to the metaphorical connections outlined by Lakoff and Johnson of up-in-center-control-rational we can add "superior" and "masculine," and to the connections of "down-out-periphery-submission-emotional we can add "inferior" and "feminine".

This seems to suggest that, somewhere in their book, Lakoff and Johnson argue for one monolithic concept called "up-in-center-control-rational", and another monolithic concept called "down-out-periphery-submission-emotional", which seems not entirely plausible given my understanding of these guys. Certainly they talk about up vs. down and how this connects metaphorically to other domains (e.g. more vs. less, better vs. worse). But do they discuss these more monolithic concepts as well? --Ryguasu 23:40 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

"Lakoff would strongly reject a number of formulations of the Strong AI position"
There is a difference between saying that
 * 1) the human mind is produced by physical brain processes

and saying that
 * 2) a human-like mind could be implemented in computer hardware.

Saying #1 does not automatically rule out #2. Some people may have suggested that it might be possible to understand human-like minds as a general phenomenon by making AI with human-like mental abilities, but it is not clear to me that even this claim need be rejected by someone who is a mind-brain monist.

Does anyone have a source that illustrates rejection of a version of strong AI by Lakoff? JWSchmidt 04:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rejecting a number of formulations of Strong AI position?
...embodiment is a rejection not only of dualism vis-a-vis mind and matter, but also of claims that human reason can be basically understood without reference to the underlying "implementation details". (Thus Lakoff would strongly reject a number of formulations of the Strong AI position.)

I think that parenthetical statement may be a non-sequitur. I don't know whether Lakoff does or does not reject these formulations, and I'm not arguing here about his views, but neither does the parenthetical statement. It is saying that a consequence of holding the embodied mind view would be to reject a number of the formulations of the strong AI position. While it's not clear exactly which formulations are meant, I do not believe that the emobided mind view should cause us in any way to reject the Strong AI position. Strong AI does not have to mean creating intelligence in exactly the same way that humans have it. And if it did have this as its goal, wouldn't the embodied mind argue against it? No, it wouldn't, for there is no reason why we couldn't also implement those "implementation details" as part of our computational model.

 * hi look, re: that - it is all a question of *what* you are "computing". Trivially, *everything in the universe* is computation or expressible in terms of computation (see e.g. Searle). The issue is whether a process is *best expressed* in terms of contemporary computation theory, or some other theory, for example one based on sets of non-linear differential equations (which in practice you would probably model with a digital computer, so as you could integrate them). In general, "embodied mind" folks, of whom there are a huge number now, overlap with the dynamicists in cogntive science. That is what the original poster had in mind I think. "Strong AI", well, you can argue about that if you like, but I think thats coming from a computer science perspective. The real argument is whether there are states in the brain that *represent* "things" in the world.The embodied mind/dynamicist folks would often hold that it does not work that way.

 * Most modern theorists reject the assertion that adult human linguistic or symbolic intelligence (as implied by the Church-Turing thesis), or playing chess, is what humans mean when they recognize each other as being concious, wise, or aware. Turing's Test also highlights these questions by suggesting that adult humans perhaps assume too much based on mere language - while paradoxically rejecting or ignoring the intelligence of great apes, who can master 2000-4000 word vocabularies.

 * It's the relationship between what mathematicians and scientists understand as "computed" versus what living creatures with bodies walking or swimming around with other bodies in ecologies would say had been successfully decided. Difference between "decided" and "computed" being bodily commitment - "intelligence" can't really exist outside some ecology enabling or requiring action. Key distinction made by body philosophers back to Wittgenstein. Turing and Wittgenstein talked about this but in terms most people don't seem to understand as being "about this"...

 * Finally, AI that doesn't respect living creatures with bodies won't respect us either - it's not like we can patch in a moral code when we notice that it wants to slaughter us all as we are slaughtering apes... has to be part of the foundation ontology to recognize certain empathic common grounds... so this is an extension of the insect-makers' argument that you must solve the problems of getting around, finding food, getting along with others of your kind who find the same food in the same place (and maybe fight over it) before you can look at these absurdly abstract problems like chess or "go"... which are meaningless as tests of anything a living being would care about.

 * I think AI "progress" is disappointing because it sets up a false goal - honest assessments of intelligence would set the Great Apes up as benchmarks and assume that humans are the deluded ones making up criteria for their own prestige (as a species, or as researchers specializing in that criteria).

Moral Politics
I think the "his book isn't unique" thesis is a bit strongly presented here and not terribly correct. Lakoff's analysis of language and framing goes a bit beyond what Orwell had in mind (and Orwell was not exactly the first person to argue that language determined quite a lot of thought, I am fairly sure) and is quite different from an Orwellian take in many respects (Orwell's position seems to be to have been that language can be used to frame things, Lakoff's is that language is always used to frame things). Jane Jacob's "guardian moral syndrome" and "commercial moral syndrome" looks only superficially like the sort of thing that Lakoff argues in Moral Politics, which is about metaphor analysis. To say that Lakoff is just derivative/duplicative of these works is incorrect and POV at the very least -- you can of course read similarities into all sorts of works (Thomas Kuhn's idea of a paradigm, Foucault's idea of the episteme, etc. etc.) if you want to. Here is seems to serve the point of trying to criticize Lakoff in a not very NPOV way. If these are specific criticisms which have been put forth by prominent critics, then they should be attributed to those critics. Otherwise they should be deleted, if they are just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. --Fastfission 01:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does this relate to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? 41.243.103.178 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I'm pretty sure his name is pronounced "Lay-koff". I say this as someone who has taken a class from him, know a number of his close friends, and once organized a talk by him. I've never heard anybody pronounce it otherwise. Any reason to suspect I'm wrong on this? (It would be somewhat mortifying if I was, since I've addressed him as such many times). --Fastfission 20:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. In IPA his name would be rendered . — mark ✎ 11:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added para
An anon added the paragraph:
 * Lakoff's concept of generative semantics may end up being an instance of generative orthogonal dimensionality, the notion that when a changee has sufficiently gone away from a state of origin, a successor state emerges as a sequential consequence of that going away from process. If so, it may turn out that the ritual of stone-raising as found in many ancient cultures will end up being recognized as a metaphor revealing why it is that conclusions, terminations, endings... always "end up" even when they end up down.

Now I consider myself somewhat proficient in Lakoff's version of linguistics, but that paragraph makes so little sense to me that my general suspicion is that it is a parody of academic jargon. If I'm wrong, could somebody please render it into something which can be understood by a nonspecialist (even a highly educated one!)? --Fastfission 21:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have the same suspicion. — mark ✎ 16:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted phrase
I deleted the italicized phrase from the passage below:
 * "Mathematics may or may not be out there in the world, but there's no way that we scientifically could possibly tell." This claim bothers a number of people, some because they think there really is a way we could "tell", others, presumably, because it implies that mathematics involves a good deal less certainty than one might expect.

I think the deleted phrase is redundant. There's no real difference between saying "there is a way we could tell" and saying that mathematics involves "certainty." Also, the deleted phrase has an oddly contradictory POV quality to it. First, it states that "one might expect" something; then it "presumes" to deduce that Lakoff's theories "imply" otherwise. Who is the "one" who "might expect" this, and who is "presuming" that Lakoff's theory implies otherwise? --Sheldon Rampton 13:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Death by a thousand cuts
An interesting exercise. If you go back and look at the origins of this article, it is clear that during the past three years almost everything related to the implications of Lakoff's important views on mathematics has been elimianted from the article.

"It is as yet unclear whether philosophers not so mathematically inclined are terribly interested in or bothered by Lakoff." Wikipedia is itself a demonstration that some "philosophers not so mathematically inclined" are so bothered by Lakoff that they have eliminated from Wikipedia almost all discussion of the implications of his ideas about mathematics. Lakoff's position undermines much of traditional Western philosophy of mathematics and has provoked strong reaction. That most "philosophers not so mathematically inclined" remain uninterested in Lakoff's position is because they continue to exist well-insulated within the traditional Platonic world view, unable to even understand any alternative. --JWSchmidt 15:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It isn't just the mathematical stuff. The recent edits by 132.181.160.61 seem to me to have injected even more anti-Lakoff scepticism into the article, although much of it was just rearranging the existing specticism (one thing added was the phrase "Lakoff has gone so far as to claim..."). I would like to try to improve the balance of the article, but I was a student of Lakoff's and I don't feel I can edit the article substantially without injecting pro-Lakoff POV.

 * Also, my understanding is that Rafael E. Núñez was a collaborator on Where Mathematics Comes From and not much more. From my reading and time in the cog sci field, he certainly isn't thought of as being on the same level as Lakoff in terms prominence as a proponent of the embodied mind thesis. It is probably safe to say that Lakoff is the primary proponent of the embodied mind thesis; Núñez was really only a collaborator on the mathematical exposition of that thesis. Mike Dillon 15:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Mike: even if you do not trust yourself to edit the article, please continue to make comments on this talk page. Even if you restrict yourself tasks such as making factual comments about the contents Lakoff's published work, that will make an important contribution to wikipedia and efforts to get good content into the Lakoff article. I'm just an interested onlooker from biology, so I am reluctant to get involved with editing the page myself. Besides, all of my copies of Lakoff books have long since walked away with my students. Maybe the article needs a section specifically about reactions to Lakoff so that those reactions do not creep into the description of his ideas. --JWSchmidt 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Will do. I've been keeping it on my watchlist to keep an eye out for any obviously egregious hack-jobs. Mike Dillon 16:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of Lakoff
I had added

 * In essence, what Lakoff states is that, "conservatives want the government to be your daddy and liberals want the government to be your mommy." Many libertarians feel that "government should treat you like an adult," and argue that this is the more healthy dynamic of a mature family.

It was removed for being POV and without external references. I totally understand the need for external references but POV? It's a criticism section and almost by definition has to be POV. I don't want to do a bunch of research for external references if its just going to be deleted because someone doesn't agree with it. Can someone clarify? -- Lawyer2b 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And Robin
Shouldn't a search for 'Lakoff' also come up with Robin Tolmach Lakoff who is also an important linguist?--81.202.229.64 10:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe better not until the stub on Robin Lakoff is fixed.--YellowLeftHand 10:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I created Lakoff (disambiguation) and added to George's page. This puts a link at the top of the page that says "'Lakoff' redirects here. For other uses, see Lakoff (disambiguation)". If Robin's page ever gets expanded into anything substantial, the Lakoff redirect can be changed to point at Lakoff (disambiguation). As it is, 99.9% of people who link to Lakoff intend for it to mean George Lakoff, and I expect 90% of the searches are looking for him too. Mike Dillon 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I was in the 10%, then- can't say I've heard of George Lakoff before stumbling across this article, but I certainly know Robin and her work. Guess I've got some very selective feminist professors. Not that I disagree with the situation as it stands, but out of curiosity, what percentage of people searching for Robin do you believe would be enough to warrant a 'Lakoff' search to redirect to the disambig page? --Lawlore 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Are they in any way connected? Or is the similarity in lastname and profession pure coincidence? --Kaffeeringe.de 10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they used to be married.219.44.212.66 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of Lakoff, revisited (William Kelleher original research)
Someone appears to think that he is the owner of this article, but he fails to understand the purpose of wikipedia. He removes criticisms of Lakoff so as to keep up an image of a prophet above criticism. In fact, this is a whitewash, hero-worshipping image of George Lakoff. That violates the rule against POV. If he continues to remove the criticism section of the Lakoff article, that could constitute vandalism. For that offense he could lose his wikipedia privileges.Wjkellpro 06:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Since you're referring to me, I suppose I should respond. No, the issue is that you, the author of the criticism in question, are adding your own original research to the Lakoff article. Your additions also have a POV-ish slant themselves, for example "one political scientist, William J. Kelleher [you], cirticizes [sic] Lakoff's metaphor thesis as more pop psychology than political science". The thing is, Lakoff doesn't claim in his work on political metaphors that it is a work of political science. Moral Politics is distinctly a work of congitive science, applying the theory of conceptual metaphor to politics. What's more, what you're calling "criticisms of Lakoff" is really one weak criticism that oversimplifies his work. I kind of doubt you've even read Moral Politics. Mike Dillon 06:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the reason why your additions and Progressive logic are original research is that you the author wrote them and they are not from what the official Wikipedia policy on original research terms a "reputable publication". The "Empathic Science Institute" is not a peer-reviewed journal, a known academic publishing house, a university press, or a division of a general publisher which has a good reputation for scholarly publications. From what I can tell from a WHOIS lookup of empathicscience.org and a Google search for "Empathic Science Institute" is that it looks like it is just William J. Kelleher. He personally registered the domain, so the book is basically self-published. Nobody except the author himself refers to the "Empathic Science Institute" on the Internet (perhaps there are offline references, I don't know). This is definitely original research and not allowed on Wikipedia.

It's not that I care to protect Lakoff from legitimate and documented criticisms. I simply want to stop this article from getting any worse, because it is currently not that good, in my opinion. Mike Dillon 07:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthew McGlone has an essay in Understanding Figurative Language that sets out a pretty formidable critique of Lakoff's and Turner's approach to metaphor. I don't have the book, and it's been years since I read it; maybe somebody could summarize the argument?--WadeMcR 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Embodied Mind"
In the section on the embodied mind, there is a reference to a work called "The Embodied Mind": "This is what he means when he says, in "The Embodied Mind", that falsifiability itself can never be established by any reasonable method that would not rely ultimately on a shared human bias." What is this work, and shouldn't a full cite be provided somewhere? Does this actually refer to Philosophy in the Flesh (which is already included in the selected bibliography)? Schi 07:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Embodied Mind is by Rosch 1991 (with Francisco Varela and Evan F. Thompson). The Embodied Mind. MIT Press. This hints that whilst Lakoff in "women fire and dangerous things" (and subsequent works) popularised embodied mind ideas, they were not the creation of Lakoff and Nunez as the article states. Perhaps better to say Lakoff played a key role in promoting/extending the embodied mind theory (which according to the New York times is "very popular") Marshaiw (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rockridge Institute
was closed in April 2010; see below.

Did Lakoff "found" the Rockridge Institute (as per intro) or "become involved" in it (as per later section)? 158.223.71.65 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The RockridgeInstitute.org no longer exists, and its archives are no longer available at that website. See any number of sources for this old 'news', such as  and/or  stating that it was closed in April 2010. This second source says:

"Update, October 9, 2010: The Rockridge Institute archives are no longer available from the links in this post. They are now available from the website of the Cognitive Policy Works, a think tank formed by former fellows of the Rockridge Institute. Thank you, Zack Lym, for contacting me and letting me know about this so that I could update this post."Arfiezy (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find the 2001 gifford lecture but it is not listed on the Gifford Lecture page. Is there a mistake on this page or the Gifford page?Mysteryrare (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The New Republic
This is a general concern I've had for quite awhile now. Any link to any article on The New Republic leads to a 404 error--as is the case with the link to Nunberg's reply to the Pinker-Lakoff debate. Is there any way these links can be recovered? 72.130.89.63 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenic language
I'm scratching my head over this paragraph:
 * Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the "strict father model" and has a family structured around a strong, dominant "father" (government), and assumes that the "children" (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible "adults" (financially and morally responsible beings). However, the "children" are "adults", and so the "father" should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the "nurturant parent model", based on "nurturant values", where both "mothers" and "fathers" work to keep the essentially good "children" away from "corrupting influences" (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.[4]

I have a strong suspicion that this came from an uneasy compromise after an edit war. In particular, the sentence I've put in bold seems completely out of place in a paragraph that begins with the words "Lakoff argues that..." Does Lakoff argue that "the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility?" Does this description match his original writing? If not, then shouldn't the above sentence perhaps be moved to a separate "criticism" section?

I'll wait for feedback, but if there is none then I might just cut that sentence. Kazim27 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Wait, I think I found what the problem is. It's this edit.
 * It looks to me like an editor misunderstood the intent of the original sentence -- the word "one" should have been "once," but the meaning was changed by substituting "however" and modifying the structure. I've changed the paragraph to reflect the original intent, please let me know if this is okay.
 * --Kazim27 (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Drawing from Adorno?
Lakoffs strict father type appears to be modeled on the Authoritarian Personality as described by Theodor W. Adorno, who, btw, also worked at Berkeley 85.242.253.238 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic background
I removed the claim that Chomsky was Lakoff's supervisor at MIT. I forget who his supervisor was, but Lakoff did his PhD at Indiana University. Here are a few citations:

http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=21 http://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=102657 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.68.16 (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

George was an undergrad at MIT, and wanted to do a Ph.D. at MIT, but he (as he recouinted to me in an unpublished interview) overheard Chomsky saying to someone "I don't want that guy here". His career as Chomsky's arch-nemesis apparently stemmed from that (he obviously didn't say that. I'm speculating. But if he had been the same pain in the butt before that he was after, he wouldn't have rationally bothered to apply to get into MIT). His supervisor at Indian was Fred Householder, if memory serves (haven't talk to George since 1976).219.44.212.66 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
Hmm. Almost no mention of the book for which Lakoff is most famous for, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. I just finished this book and it cites his core linguistic theories and how he was originally inspired by the original work of anthropologist Eleanor Rosch. Seeing how this article talks extensively about Lakoff's linguistics theories, I find the omission in the main body of the text of Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things and of Rosch's contributions to his theories as curious. Perhaps it is because this book is now considered dated? (It was published in 1986.) Am I to assume that Lakoff has moved on in a different direction? If so why is his book still widely available? This book can be found at almost any nationwide bookstore chain in the philosophy or linguistics section. Anyone care to comment? Aletheia (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess would be no one who has edited the article read it. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my suspicion also. Perhaps I will have time to correct that oversight in the near future? Aletheia (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Geoffrey Nunberg say anything interesting?
I've moved this sentence, from the article to here:

Geoffrey Nunberg, linguist, UC Berkeley professor and author of Talking Right, weighed in on Lakoff vs Pinker in a post on The New Republic's web site.

It was a paragraph, on it's own. It says nothing. Was Nunberg for or against Lakoff? If he added something new, what was it? I should have just deleted it, but it's a good example of useless text.

Maybe there's something useful that could be said about Nunberg's article (I don't know, I've never heard of this guy or read anything by him), but nothing in the removed sentence gives any substantial information about the topic of this article (George Lakoff). Gronky (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Metaphors we live by
There is no mention of Lakoff's first book in the list of writings. Should it be added?

The link to Embodied Philosophy leads to Embodied Cognition. Is the naming intentional or should it be corrected? Wikikrax (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Robin Lakoff
She's mentioned in both the infobox here and the one in Robin Lakoff, but only the latter article mentions her marriage to George in the text; this seems to be because her article has a biography section and George's does not. Shouldn't this be fixed? I'd do it but I'm not sure how. Also, the wikiproject tags disagree on whether this is start-class or C-class -- which is it? ekips39 ❀talk  16:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Lakoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611210922/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/people/lakoff to http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/people/lakoff
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040826154735/http://www.alternet.org/story/15414 to http://www.alternet.org/story/15414

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Lakoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/whencognitivescienceenterspolitics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515072928/http://www.defendingscience.org/sites/default/files/upload/LakoffDAUBERT.pdf to http://www.defendingscience.org/sites/default/files/upload/LakoffDAUBERT.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610015303/http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=247 to http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Lakoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614093320/http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPNLHU&Volume=0&Issue=0&Summary=True to http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPNLHU&Volume=0&Issue=0&Summary=True

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:George Lakoff


text:
User:Explorenorth

Explorenorth is the Wikipedia ID of journalist Murray Lundberg, who lives in Canada's Yukon Territory. He runs a huge Web network about the circumpolar North - called ExploreNorth, it can be found at http://www.explorenorth.com

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Explorenorth


text:
Talk:Brittany

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Brittany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117075109/http://agencebretagnepresse.com/pdfs/15280_2.pdf to http://www.agencebretagnepresse.com/pdfs/15280_2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130318111502/http://www.france.fr:80/en/regions-and-cities/brittany-west-end-world to http://www.france.fr/en/regions-and-cities/brittany-west-end-world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Brittany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612014247/http://www.festival-interceltique.com/festival/nations-celtes.cfm to http://www.festival-interceltique.com/festival/nations-celtes.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711023017/http://us.franceguide.com/Cultural-Brittany.html?NodeID=1&EditoID=193027 to http://us.franceguide.com/Cultural-Brittany.html?NodeID=1&EditoID=193027
 * Added tag to http://www2.ac-rennes.fr/cst/doc/dossiers/archeo/archeo/classique.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226113452/http://www.breizh-amerika.com/breton-american-history.html to http://www.breizh-amerika.com/breton-american-history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320132724/http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Sous-sol/Le-contexte-breton/Histoire-geologique to http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Sous-sol/Le-contexte-breton/Histoire-geologique
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320111558/http://bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-oiseaux/Les-oiseaux-marins/Les-oiseaux-marins-des-falaises-des-ilots-des-embruns-et-des-plumes to http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-oiseaux/Les-oiseaux-marins/Les-oiseaux-marins-des-falaises-des-ilots-des-embruns-et-des-plumes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130325002324/http://bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-mammiferes/Les-mammiferes-semi-aquatiques to http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-mammiferes/Les-mammiferes-semi-aquatiques
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516093510/http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-invertebres/Les-invertebres-continentaux/Que-sait-on-des-invertebres-continentaux-en-Bretagne to http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-invertebres/Les-invertebres-continentaux/Que-sait-on-des-invertebres-continentaux-en-Bretagne
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125035427/http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-mammiferes to http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-faune/Les-mammiferes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126021031/http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-flore/Les-plantes-a-fleurs-menacees to http://www.bretagne-environnement.org/Patrimoine-naturel/La-flore/Les-plantes-a-fleurs-menacees
 * Added tag to http://www.vocatis.fr/article.php3?id_article=17207
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525025511/http://www.bretagne.cci.fr/1-22298-Richesse-PIB.php to http://www.bretagne.cci.fr/1-22298-Richesse-PIB.php
 * Added tag to http://www.gecodia.fr/La-demographie-de-la-Bretagne-depuis-1851_a1430.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209073820/http://www.bretagne.cci.fr/1-22297-Demographie.php to http://www.bretagne.cci.fr/1-22297-Demographie.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002225736/http://www.prefics.org/credilif/travaux/RapportGallo1.pdf to http://www.prefics.org/credilif/travaux/RapportGallo1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.france.fr/en/regions-and-cities/brittany-west-end-world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brittany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319203017/http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20106-Annee-1993/10235-93/10880-gros-plan/16926-histoire/16927-la-lente-mise-en-place-des/index.html to http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20106-Annee-1993/10235-93/10880-gros-plan/16926-histoire/16927-la-lente-mise-en-place-des/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105230921/http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20109-Annee-1996/10195-125/10680-gros-plan/12801-histoire-et-societe/12803-le-plan-routier-breton/index.html to http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20109-Annee-1996/10195-125/10680-gros-plan/12801-histoire-et-societe/12803-le-plan-routier-breton/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105231028/http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20109-Annee-1996/10197-123/10690-gros-plan/15348-histoire-et-societe/15350-le-plan-routier-breton-2/index.html to http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20109-Annee-1996/10197-123/10690-gros-plan/15348-histoire-et-societe/15350-le-plan-routier-breton-2/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105231049/http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20109-Annee-1996/10196-124/10685-gros-plan/12851-histoire-et-societe/12852-le-plan-routier-breton-3/index.html to http://www.espace-sciences.org/science/10065-sciences-ouest/20109-Annee-1996/10196-124/10685-gros-plan/12851-histoire-et-societe/12852-le-plan-routier-breton-3/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Highest point?
A referenced statement says that "The highest hill in Brittany is the Roc'h Ruz in the Monts d'Arrée, at 385 m" - this appears to be contradicted by the presence of a spot height on IGN mapping at Roc'h Tredudon (south-southeast of the village of Plouneour-Menez) which has the value 387m -see https://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/carte?c=-3.880278,48.416667&z=0.000316906&l=GEOLOGY.GEOLOGY$EXTERNAL:OGC:EXTERNALWMS(1)&permalink=yes (select 'carte topographque IGN). Geopersona (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Name in the Gallo language
Our article says it's Bertaèyn, but the French Wikipedia says it's Bertègn. If one is wrong, it should be fixed. If both are right and they're variant spellings, then both articles should show both. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Flag of South Azerbaijan.svg

Nomination of Portal:Brittany for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Brittany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brittany until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits: Breton departments, Loire-Atlantique and historical Brittany
Hello

The following paragraph is obviously somewhat controversial, as it, as far as I can remember, is subject to recurring edits, by various users. Maybe we should discuss it?

"Today, the historical province of Brittany is split among five French departments: Finistère in the west, Côtes-d'Armor in the north, Ille-et-Vilaine in the northeast, Loire-Atlantique in the southeast and Morbihan in the south on the Bay of Biscay. Since reorganisation in 1956, the modern administrative region of Brittany comprises only four of the five Breton departments, or 80% of historical Brittany. The remaining area of old Brittany, the Loire-Atlantique department around Nantes, now forms part of the Pays de la Loire region."

I think the information is entirely correct.

 * The historical province of Brittany was split into five departments in 1790. Ref: Histoire (bretagne.bzh website)
 * Loire-Atlantique should be considered part of historical Brittany. Nantes was one of the capitals and principal cities of the Duchy of Brittany, and the area was part of the Breton political and administrative entities (the Kingdom of Brittany, the Duchy of Brittany and the Province of Brittany) for several hundred years (850-1790).

Kindest

/EriFr (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 * This happened again recently. See Special:Diff/1050685551. I'm no authority on this topic, so I'm not sure to revert it myself, but the edit note doesn't look too rational. Monxton (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Department?
Is that a term used in US or British English? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Linguistics and Nazi Germany
It seems Brittany was the target of German linguists during WWII, expecting to show ties between Brittany's population and the German people, in hopes of receiving their support for the Nazi regime during WWII. See this book. Can anybody comment on this? Could/should it be added to the information in the article? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of Balochistan.png

New map of France's regions
There is a map showing the historical "départements" of Brittany, but with the old french regions borders, wich change in 2016. I don't know how to make such a map so i just point it out hoping somebody will edit it. Luntyo (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of South Azerbaijan.svg

Adding Kingdom of Brittany link
There is a page with the name “Kingdom of Brittany”, so I think there should be a template:main to the Kingdom of Brittany page.

— A MicroWikipedian Wikipedian (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bro gozh ma zado -O Breizh ma Bro- (Version orchestre).ogg

Origin of Bretons
It’s more likely large populations of Bretons from Southern England left for Brittany, from what became Sussex, Hampshire and Dorset. Although some speculate that the Belgae of Sussex were Germanic. 88.97.108.45 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Romanian language link
Hello

In the list of language alternatives there is no Romanian article. This article does exist here: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretania. It's properly linked to the France article as well. I couldn't edit the list myself, seems i don't have rights, if someone else could do it that would be great. Americanu197 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brittany


text:
Planner (programming language)

Planner (often seen in publications as "PLANNER" although it is not an acronym) is a programming language designed by Carl Hewitt at MIT, and first published in 1969. First, subsets such as Micro-Planner and Pico-Planner were implemented, and then essentially the whole language was implemented as Popler by Julian Davies at the University of Edinburgh in the POP-2 programming language. Derivations such as QA4, Conniver, QLISP and Ether (see scientific community metaphor) were important tools in artificial intelligence research in the 1970s, which influenced commercial developments such as Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE) and Automated Reasoning Tool (ART).

Procedural approach versus logical approach
The two major paradigms for constructing semantic software systems were procedural and logical. The procedural paradigm was epitomized by Lisp which featured recursive procedures that operated on list structures.

The logical paradigm was epitomized by uniform proof procedure resolution-based derivation (proof) finders. According to the logical paradigm it was “cheating” to incorporate procedural knowledge.

Procedural embedding of knowledge
Planner was invented for the purposes of the procedural embedding of knowledge and was a rejection of the resolution uniform proof procedure paradigm, which
 * 1) Converted everything to clausal form. Converting all information to clausal form is problematic because it hides the underlying structure of the information.
 * 2) Then used resolution to attempt to obtain a proof by contradiction by adding the clausal form of the negation of the theorem to be proved. Using only resolution as the rule of inference is problematical because it hides the underlying structure of proofs. Also, using proof by contradiction is problematical because the axiomatizations of all practical domains of knowledge are inconsistent in practice.

Planner was a kind of hybrid between the procedural and logical paradigms because it combined programmability with logical reasoning. Planner featured a procedural interpretation of logical sentences where an implication of the form (P implies Q) can be procedurally interpreted in the following ways using pattern-directed invocation:
 * 1) Forward chaining (antecedently):
 * If assert P, assert Q
 * If assert not Q, assert not P
 * 1) Backward chaining (consequently)
 * If goal Q, goal P
 * If goal not P, goal not Q

In this respect, the development of Planner was influenced by natural deductive logical systems (especially the one by Frederic Fitch [1952]).

Micro-planner implementation
A subset called Micro-Planner was implemented by Gerry Sussman, Eugene Charniak and Terry Winograd and was used in Winograd's natural-language understanding program SHRDLU, Eugene Charniak's story understanding work, Thorne McCarty's work on legal reasoning, and some other projects. This generated a great deal of excitement in the field of AI. It also generated controversy because it proposed an alternative to the logic approach that had been one of the mainstay paradigms for AI.

At SRI International, Jeff Rulifson, Jan Derksen, and Richard Waldinger developed QA4 which built on the constructs in Planner and introduced a context mechanism to provide modularity for expressions in the database. Earl Sacerdoti and Rene Reboh developed QLISP, an extension of QA4 embedded in INTERLISP, providing Planner-like reasoning embedded in a procedural language and developed in its rich programming environment. QLISP was used by Richard Waldinger and Karl Levitt for program verification, by Earl Sacerdoti for planning and execution monitoring, by Jean-Claude Latombe for computer-aided design, by Nachum Dershowitz for program synthesis, by Richard Fikes for deductive retrieval, and by Steven Coles for an early expert system that guided use of an econometric model.

Computers were expensive. They had only a single slow processor and their memories were very small by comparison with today. So Planner adopted some efficiency expedients including the following:

 * Backtracking was adopted to economize on the use of time and storage by working on and storing only one possibility at a time in exploring alternatives.
 * A unique name assumption was adopted to save space and time by assuming that different names referred to different objects. For example, names like Peking (previous PRC capital name) and Beijing (current PRC capital transliteration) were assumed to refer to different objects.
 * A closed-world assumption could be implemented by conditionally testing whether an attempt to prove a goal exhaustively failed. Later this capability was given the misleading name "negation as failure" because for a goal G it was possible to say:  "if attempting to achieve G exhaustively fails then assert (Not G)."

The genesis of Prolog
Gerry Sussman, Eugene Charniak, Seymour Papert and Terry Winograd visited the University of Edinburgh in 1971, spreading the news about Micro-Planner and SHRDLU and casting doubt on the resolution uniform proof procedure approach that had been the mainstay of the Edinburgh Logicists. At the University of Edinburgh, Bruce Anderson implemented a subset of Micro-Planner called PICO-PLANNER, and Julian Davies (1973) implemented essentially all of Planner.

According to Donald MacKenzie, Pat Hayes recalled the impact of a visit from Papert to Edinburgh, which had become the "heart of artificial intelligence's Logicland," according to Papert's MIT colleague, Carl Hewitt. Papert eloquently voiced his critique of the resolution approach dominant at Edinburgh "…and at least one person upped sticks and left because of Papert." The above developments generated tension among the Logicists at Edinburgh. These tensions were exacerbated when the UK Science Research Council commissioned Sir James Lighthill to write a report on the AI research situation in the UK. The resulting report [ Lighthill 1973; McCarthy 1973] was highly critical although SHRDLU was favorably mentioned.

Pat Hayes visited Stanford where he learned about Planner. When he returned to Edinburgh, he tried to influence his friend Bob Kowalski to take Planner into account in their joint work on automated theorem proving. "Resolution theorem-proving was demoted from a hot topic to a relic of the misguided past. Bob Kowalski doggedly stuck to his faith in the potential of resolution theorem proving. He carefully studied Planner.”. Kowalski [1988] states "I can recall trying to convince Hewitt that Planner was similar to SL-resolution." But Planner was invented for the purposes of the procedural embedding of knowledge and was a rejection of the resolution uniform proof procedure paradigm. Colmerauer and Roussel recalled their reaction to learning about Planner in the following way:

"While attending an IJCAI convention in September ‘71 with Jean Trudel, we met Robert Kowalski again and heard a lecture by Terry Winograd on natural language processing. The fact that he did not use a unified formalism left us puzzled. It was at this time that we learned of the existence of Carl Hewitt’s programming language, Planner. The lack of formalization of this language, our ignorance of Lisp and, above all, the fact that we were absolutely devoted to logic meant that this work had little influence on our later research."

In the fall of 1972, Philippe Roussel implemented a language called Prolog (an abbreviation for PROgrammation en LOGique – French for "programming in logic"). Prolog programs are generically of the following form (which is a special case of the backward-chaining in Planner):
 * When goal Q, goal P1 and ... and goal Pn

Prolog duplicated the following aspects of Micro-Planner: Prolog also duplicated the following capabilities of Micro-Planner which were pragmatically useful for the computers of the era because they saved space and time:
 * Pattern directed invocation of procedures from goals (i.e. backward chaining)
 * An indexed data base of pattern-directed procedures and ground sentences.
 * Giving up on the completeness paradigm that had characterized previous work on theorem proving and replacing it with the programming language procedural embedding of knowledge paradigm.
 * Backtracking control structure
 * Unique Name Assumption by which different names are assumed to refer to distinct entities, e.g., Peking and Beijing are assumed to be different.
 * Reification of Failure. The way that Planner established that something was provable was to successfully attempt it as a goal and the way that it establish that something was unprovable was to attempt it as a goal and explicitly fail. Of course the other possibility is that the attempt to prove the goal runs forever and never returns any value.  Planner also had a (not expression)  construct which succeeded if expression failed, which gave rise to the “Negation as Failure” terminology in Planner.

Use of the Unique Name Assumption and Negation as Failure became more questionable when attention turned to Open Systems.

The following capabilities of Micro-Planner were omitted from Prolog:
 * Pattern-directed invocation of procedural plans from assertions (i.e., forward chaining)
 * Logical negation, e.g., (not (human Socrates)).

Prolog did not include negation in part because it raises implementation issues. Consider for example if negation were included in the following Prolog program:

 * not Q.
 * Q :- P.

The above program would be unable to prove not P even though it follows by the rules of mathematical logic. This is an illustration of the fact that Prolog (like Planner) is intended to be a programming language and so does not (by itself) prove many of the logical consequences that follow from a declarative reading of its programs. The work on Prolog was valuable in that it was much simpler than Planner. However, as the need arose for greater expressive power in the language, Prolog began to include many of the capabilities of Planner that were left out of the original version of Prolog.

title: Planner (programming language)


text:
Oracle Solaris

Solaris is a proprietary Unix operating system originally developed by Sun Microsystems. After the Sun acquisition by Oracle in 2010, it was renamed Oracle Solaris.

Solaris superseded the company's earlier SunOS in 1993, and became known for its scalability, especially on SPARC systems, and for originating many innovative features such as DTrace, ZFS and Time Slider. Solaris supports SPARC and x86-64 workstations and servers from Oracle and other vendors. Solaris was registered as compliant with the Single UNIX Specification until 29 April 2019.

Historically, Solaris was developed as proprietary software. In June 2005, Sun Microsystems released most of the codebase under the CDDL license, and founded the OpenSolaris open-source project. With OpenSolaris, Sun wanted to build a developer and user community around the software. After the acquisition of Sun Microsystems in January 2010, Oracle decided to discontinue the OpenSolaris distribution and the development model. In August 2010, Oracle discontinued providing public updates to the source code of the Solaris kernel, effectively turning Solaris 11 back into a closed source proprietary operating system. Following that, OpenSolaris was forked as Illumos and is alive through several illumos distributions. In September 2017, Oracle laid off most of the Solaris teams.

History
In 1987, AT&T Corporation and Sun announced that they were collaborating on a project to merge the most popular Unix variants on the market at that time: Berkeley Software Distribution, UNIX System V, and Xenix. This became Unix System V Release 4 (SVR4).

On September 4, 1991, Sun announced that it would replace its existing BSD-derived Unix, SunOS 4, with one based on SVR4. This was identified internally as SunOS 5, but a new marketing name was introduced at the same time: Solaris 2. The justification for this new overbrand was that it encompassed not only SunOS, but also the OpenWindows graphical user interface and Open Network Computing (ONC) functionality.

Although SunOS 4.1.x micro releases were retroactively named Solaris 1 by Sun, the Solaris name is used almost exclusively to refer only to the releases based on SVR4-derived SunOS 5.0 and later.

For releases based on SunOS 5, the SunOS minor version is included in the Solaris release number. For example, Solaris 2.4 incorporates SunOS 5.4. After Solaris 2.6, the 2. was dropped from the release name, so Solaris 7 incorporates SunOS 5.7, and the latest release SunOS 5.11 forms the core of Solaris 11.4.

Although SunSoft stated in its initial Solaris 2 press release their intent to eventually support both SPARC and x86 systems, the first two Solaris 2 releases, 2.0 and 2.1, were SPARC-only. An x86 version of Solaris 2.1 was released in June 1993, about 6 months after the SPARC version, as a desktop and uniprocessor workgroup server operating system. It included the Wabi emulator to support Windows applications. At the time, Sun also offered the Interactive Unix system that it had acquired from Interactive Systems Corporation. In 1994, Sun released Solaris 2.4, supporting both SPARC and x86 systems from a unified source code base.

In 2011, the Solaris 11 kernel source code leaked.

On September 2, 2017, Simon Phipps, a former Sun Microsystems employee not hired by Oracle in the acquisition, reported on Twitter that Oracle had laid off the Solaris core development staff, which many interpreted as sign that Oracle no longer intended to support future development of the platform. While Oracle did have a large layoff of Solaris development engineering staff, development continued and Solaris 11.4 was released in 2018.

Supported architectures
Solaris uses a common code base for the platforms it supports: 64-bit SPARC and x86-64.

Solaris has a reputation for being well-suited to symmetric multiprocessing, supporting a large number of CPUs. It has historically been tightly integrated with Sun's SPARC hardware (including support for 64-bit SPARC applications since Solaris 7), with which it is marketed as a combined package. This has led to more reliable systems, but at a cost premium compared to commodity PC hardware. However, it has supported x86 systems since Solaris 2.1 and 64-bit x86 applications since Solaris 10, allowing Sun to capitalize on the availability of commodity 64-bit CPUs based on the x86-64 architecture. Sun heavily marketed Solaris for use with both its own x86-64-based Sun Java Workstation and the x86-64 models of the Sun Ultra series workstations, and servers based on AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon processors, as well as x86 systems manufactured by companies such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM. , the following vendors support Solaris for their x86 server systems:
 * Dell – will "test, certify, and optimize Solaris and OpenSolaris on its rack and blade servers and offer them as one of several choices in the overall Dell software menu"
 * Intel
 * Hewlett Packard Enterprise – distributes and provides software technical support for Solaris on BL, DL, and SL platforms
 * Fujitsu Siemens

Other platforms
Solaris 2.5.1 included support for the PowerPC platform (PowerPC Reference Platform), but the port was canceled before the Solaris 2.6 release. In January 2006, a community of developers at Blastwave began work on a PowerPC port which they named Polaris. In October 2006, an OpenSolaris community project based on the Blastwave efforts and Sun Labs' Project Pulsar, which re-integrated the relevant parts from Solaris 2.5.1 into OpenSolaris, announced its first official source code release.

A port of Solaris to the Intel Itanium architecture was announced in 1997 but never brought to market.

On November 28, 2007, IBM, Sun, and Sine Nomine Associates demonstrated a preview of OpenSolaris for System z running on an IBM System z mainframe under z/VM, called Sirius (in analogy to the Polaris project, and also due to the primary developer's Australian nationality: HMS Sirius of 1786 was a ship of the First Fleet to Australia). On October 17, 2008, a prototype release of Sirius was made available and on November 19 the same year, IBM authorized the use of Sirius on System z Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL) processors.

Solaris also supports the Linux platform application binary interface (ABI), allowing Solaris to run native Linux binaries on x86 systems. This feature is called Solaris Containers for Linux Applications (SCLA), based on the branded zones functionality introduced in Solaris 10 8/07.

Installation and usage options
Solaris can be installed from various pre-packaged software groups, ranging from a minimalistic Reduced Network Support to a complete Entire Plus OEM. Installation of Solaris is not necessary for an individual to use the system. The DVD ISO image can be used to load Solaris, running in-memory, rather than initiating the installation. Additional software, like Apache, MySQL, etc. can be installed as well in a packaged form from sunfreeware and OpenCSW. Solaris can be installed from physical media or a network for use on a desktop or server, or be used without installing on a desktop or server.

Updates
There are several types of updates within each major release, including the Software Packages, and the Oracle Solaris Image.

Additional minor updates called Support Repository Updates (SRUs) and Critical Patch Update Packages (CPUs), require a support credential, thus are not freely available to the public.

Desktop environments
Early releases of Solaris used OpenWindows as the standard desktop environment. In Solaris 2.0 to 2.2, OpenWindows supported both NeWS and X applications, and provided backward compatibility for SunView applications from Sun's older desktop environment. NeWS allowed applications to be built in an object-oriented way using PostScript, a common printing language released in 1982. The X Window System originated from MIT's Project Athena in 1984 and allowed for the display of an application to be disconnected from the machine where the application was running, separated by a network connection. Sun's original bundled SunView application suite was ported to X.

Sun later dropped support for legacy SunView applications and NeWS with OpenWindows 3.3, which shipped with Solaris 2.3, and switched to X11R5 with Display Postscript support. The graphical look and feel remained based upon OPEN LOOK. OpenWindows 3.6.2 was the last release under Solaris 8. The OPEN LOOK Window Manager (olwm) with other OPEN LOOK specific applications were dropped in Solaris 9, but support libraries were still bundled, providing long term binary backwards compatibility with existing applications. The OPEN LOOK Virtual Window Manager (olvwm) can still be downloaded for Solaris from sunfreeware and works on releases as recent as Solaris 10.

Sun and other Unix vendors created an industry alliance to standardize Unix desktops. As a member of the Common Open Software Environment (COSE) initiative, Sun helped co-develop the Common Desktop Environment (CDE). This was an initiative to create a standard Unix desktop environment. Each vendor contributed different components: Hewlett-Packard contributed the window manager, IBM provided the file manager, and Sun provided the e-mail and calendar facilities as well as drag-and-drop support (ToolTalk). This new desktop environment was based upon the Motif look and feel and the old OPEN LOOK desktop environment was considered legacy. CDE unified Unix desktops across multiple open system vendors. CDE was available as an unbundled add-on for Solaris 2.4 and 2.5, and was included in Solaris 2.6 through 10.

In 2001, Sun issued a preview release of the open-source desktop environment GNOME 1.4, based on the GTK+ toolkit, for Solaris 8. Solaris 9 8/03 introduced GNOME 2.0 as an alternative to CDE. Solaris 10 includes Sun's Java Desktop System (JDS), which is based on GNOME and comes with a large set of applications, including StarOffice, Sun's office suite. Sun describes JDS as a "major component" of Solaris 10. The Java Desktop System is not included in Solaris 11 which instead ships with a stock version of GNOME. Likewise, CDE applications are no longer included in Solaris 11, but many libraries remain for binary backwards compatibility.

The open source desktop environments KDE and Xfce, along with numerous other window managers, also compile and run on recent versions of Solaris.

Sun was investing in a new desktop environment called Project Looking Glass since 2003. The project has been inactive since late 2006.

Traditional operating system license (1992 to 2004)
For versions up to 2005 (Solaris 9), Solaris was licensed under a license that permitted a customer to buy licenses in bulk, and install the software on any machine up to a maximum number. The key license grant was:

"License to Use. Customer is granted a non-exclusive and non-transferable license ('License') for the use of the accompanying binary software in machine-readable form, together with accompanying documentation ('Software'), by the number of users and the class of computer hardware for which the corresponding fee has been paid."

In addition, the license provided a "License to Develop" granting rights to create derivative works, restricted copying to only a single archival copy, disclaimer of warranties, and the like. The license varied only little through 2004.

Open source (2005 until March 2010)
From 2005–10, Sun began to release the source code for development builds of Solaris under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) via the OpenSolaris project. This code was based on the work being done for the post-Solaris 10 release (code-named "Nevada"; eventually released as Oracle Solaris 11). As the project progressed, it grew to encompass most of the necessary code to compile an entire release, with a few exceptions.

Post-Sun closed source (March 2010 to present)
When Sun was acquired by Oracle in 2010, the OpenSolaris project was discontinued after the board became unhappy with Oracle's stance on the project. In March 2010, the previously freely available Solaris 10 was placed under a restrictive license that limited the use, modification and redistribution of the operating system. The license allowed the user to download the operating system free of charge, through the Oracle Technology Network, and use it for a 90-day trial period. After that trial period had expired the user would then have to purchase a support contract from Oracle to continue using the operating system.

With the release of Solaris 11 in 2011, the license terms changed again. The new license allows Solaris 10 and Solaris 11 to be downloaded free of charge from the Oracle Technology Network and used without a support contract indefinitely; however, the license only expressly permits the user to use Solaris as a development platform and expressly forbids commercial and "production" use. Educational use is permitted in some circumstances. From the OTN license:

"If You are an educational institution vested with the power to confer official high school, associate, bachelor, master and/or doctorate degrees, or local equivalent, ('Degree(s)'), You may also use the Programs as part of Your educational curriculum for students enrolled in Your Degree program(s) solely as required for the conferral of such Degree (collectively 'Educational Use')."

When Solaris is used without a support contract it can be upgraded to each new "point release"; however, a support contract is required for access to patches and updates that are released monthly.

Version history
Notable features of Solaris include DTrace, Doors, Service Management Facility, Solaris Containers, Solaris Multiplexed I/O, Solaris Volume Manager, ZFS, and Solaris Trusted Extensions.

Updates to Solaris versions are periodically issued. In the past, these were named after the month and year of their release, such as "Solaris 10 1/13"; as of Solaris 11, sequential update numbers are appended to the release name with a period, such as "Oracle Solaris 11.4".

In ascending order, the following versions of Solaris have been released:

A more comprehensive summary of some Solaris versions is also available. Solaris releases are also described in the Solaris 2 FAQ.

Development release
The underlying Solaris codebase has been under continuous development since work began in the late 1980s on what was eventually released as Solaris 2.0. Each version such as Solaris 10 is based on a snapshot of this development codebase, taken near the time of its release, which is then maintained as a derived project. Updates to that project are built and delivered several times a year until the next official release comes out.

The Solaris version under development by Sun since the release of Solaris 10 in 2005, was codenamed Nevada, and is derived from what is now the OpenSolaris codebase.

In 2003, an addition to the Solaris development process was initiated. Under the program name Software Express for Solaris (or just Solaris Express), a binary release based on the current development basis was made available for download on a monthly basis, allowing anyone to try out new features and test the quality and stability of the OS as it progressed to the release of the next official Solaris version. A later change to this program introduced a quarterly release model with support available, renamed Solaris Express Developer Edition (SXDE).

In 2007, Sun announced Project Indiana with several goals, including providing an open source binary distribution of the OpenSolaris project, replacing SXDE. The first release of this distribution was OpenSolaris 2008.05.

The Solaris Express Community Edition (SXCE) was intended specifically for OpenSolaris developers. It was updated every two weeks until it was discontinued in January 2010, with a recommendation that users migrate to the OpenSolaris distribution. Although the download license seen when downloading the image files indicates its use is limited to personal, educational and evaluation purposes, the license acceptance form displayed when the user actually installs from these images lists additional uses including commercial and production environments.

SXCE releases terminated with build 130 and OpenSolaris releases terminated with build 134 a few weeks later. The next release of OpenSolaris based on build 134 was due in March 2010, but it was never fully released, though the packages were made available on the package repository. Instead, Oracle renamed the binary distribution Solaris 11 Express, changed the license terms and released build 151a as 2010.11 in November 2010.

Current

 * illumos – A fully open source fork of the project, started in 2010 by a community of Sun OpenSolaris engineers and Nexenta OS. OpenSolaris was not 100% open source: Some drivers and some libraries were property of other companies that Sun (now Oracle) licensed and was not able to release.
 * OpenIndiana – A project under the illumos umbrella aiming "... to become the de facto OpenSolaris distribution installed on production servers where security and bug fixes are required free of charge."
 * SchilliX – The first LiveCD released after OpenSolaris code was opened to public.
 * napp-it – A webmanaged ZFS storage appliance based on Solaris and the free forks like OmniOS with a Free and Pro edition.
 * NexentaStor – Optimized for storage workloads, based on Nexenta OS.
 * SmartOS – Virtualization centered derivative from MNX Solutions (previously Joyent).

Discontinued

 * OpenSolaris – A project initiated by Sun Microsystems, discontinued after the acquisition by Oracle.
 * Nexenta OS (discontinued October 31, 2012) – First distribution based on Ubuntu userland with Solaris-derived kernel.
 * StormOS (discontinued September 14, 2012 ) – A lightweight desktop OS based on Nexenta OS and Xfce.
 * MartUX – The first SPARC distribution of OpenSolaris, with an alpha prototype released by Martin Bochnig in April 2006. It was distributed as a Live CD but is later available only on DVD as it has had the Blastwave community software added. Its goal was to become a desktop operating system. The first SPARC release was a small Live CD, released as marTux_0.2 Live CD in summer of 2006, the first straight OpenSolaris distribution for SPARC (not to be confused with GNOME metacity theme). It was later re-branded as MartUX and the next releases included full SPARC installers in addition to the Live media. Much later, MartUX was re-branded as OpenSXCE when it moved to the first OpenSolaris release to support both SPARC and Intel architectures after Sun was acquired by Oracle.
 * MilaX – A small Live CD/Live USB with minimal set of packages to fit a 90 MB image.
 * Dyson – illumos kernel with GNU userland and packages from Debian. Project is no longer active and the website is offline.
 * EON ZFS Storage – A NAS implementation targeted at embedded systems.
 * Jaris OS – Live DVD and also installable. Pronounced according to the IPA but in English as Yah-Rees. This distribution has been heavily modified to fully support a version of Wine called Madoris that can install and run Windows programs at native speed. Jaris stands for "Japanese Solaris". Madoris is a combination of the Japanese word for Windows "mado" and Solaris.
 * OpenSXCE – An OpenSolaris distribution release for both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 platforms and SPARC microprocessors, initially produced from OpenSolaris source code repository, ported to the illumos source code repository to form OpenIndiana's first SPARC distribution. Notably, the first OpenSolaris distribution with illumos source for SPARC based upon OpenIndiana, OpenSXCE finally moved to a new source code repository, based upon DilOS.

Reception
All in all, Sun has stayed the course with Solaris 9. While its more user-friendly management is welcome, that probably won't be enough to win over converts. What may is the platform's reliability, flexibility, and power. Be that as it may, since the Solaris 10 download is free, it behooves any IT manager to load it on an extra server and at least give it a try. Solaris 10 provides a flexible background for securely dividing system resources, providing performance guarantees and tracking usage for these containers. Creating basic containers and populating them with user applications and resources is simple. But some cases may require quite a bit of fine-tuning. I think that Sun has put some really nice touches on Solaris 10 that make it a better operating system for both administrators and users. The security enhancements are a long time coming, but are worth the wait. Is Solaris 10 perfect, in a word no it is not. But for most uses, including a desktop OS I think Solaris 10 is a huge improvement over previous releases. We've had fun with Solaris 10. It's got virtues that we definitely admire. What it needs to compete with Linux will be easier to bring about than what it's already got. It could become a Linux killer, or at least a serious competitor on Linux's turf. The only question is whether Sun has the will to see it through.
 * Robert Lipschutz and Gregg Harrington from PC Magazine reviewed Solaris 9 in 2002:
 * Robert Lipschutz also reviewed Solaris 10:
 * Tom Henderson reviewed Solaris 10 for Network World:
 * Robert Escue for OSNews:
 * Thomas Greene for The Register:

title: Oracle Solaris