text:
Talk:Molecule

collective, collectiion and diamond
In the introductory paragraph, aggregate (a total considered with reference to its constituent parts) seems quite a bit more suitable than collection (an accumulation; a deposit) or even collective (this last one was masked vandalism).

As for the diamond "molecule": the term molecule refers to a well-defined particle of a chemically pure substance. Atomically pure diamond yields no well-defined molecular particle anyone could point to. Moreover, a common diamond crystal will always carry lattice and surface defects that make its local chemical properties different than the bulk. Even the most perfect diamond crystal will have surface terminal groups (hydrogens, hydroxyls, carbonyls, etc.) and so it will not be a pure chemical substance overall. It will be a covalent structure, though.

--Unconcerned 07:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Let me be devil's advocate. Assume a perfect crystal with no dislocations. That's possible, and it's even possible on quite large scales. The same is true for single polymer molecules, like the DNA making up a chromosome. Thus, you have one big molecule. As for "pure chemical sustance", this one molecule may be the only exemplifier of whatever chemical substance it is. If so, the word "pure" has no meaning. "Pure" applies when we're considering copies, but we might not, and nothing says we must. Any single molecule is by definition pure. If it's one molecule, and it has a formula, it's a bonafide chemical substance. There may not be another molecule in the universe like it, with the exact same formula. So? That might be true of any of your X chromosomes if they happen to have a unique mutation. Again, so? What is or isn't a molecule is a matter of aesthetics, not science. If they get too big, people don't like to call them molecules, is all. We might as well just admit this, and move on. S  B Harris 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree, but if it gets too big then stability and/or "well definedness" become questionable :-) "Purity" is at its best a rather vague concept.  From the general definition standpoint ("the smallest particle...") one could always imagine the most extreme case that fits the description; any grain of sand could eventually be considered a unique, pure molecule, right?  Kinetic theory of gases and the molecular vs. continuum treatments set the background for the definition of a molecule based on divisibility. (see )  I am being bold and so have added some of this discussion in the intro paragraph. As a side note, a chemist with some molecular modeling experience will definitely feel uncomfortable to accept as molecule a structure that has to be decribed using crystallography-specific "unit cells", or "periodic boundary condition" models.  Or one that simply won't entirely fit on a decent computer display ;-) --Unconcerned 07:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro definition
I have been reverted by User:Vsmith (reason: per ref Zumdahl). Thus, I am putting the topic here to discuss further. The intro definition as it stands is:

 * In chemistry, a molecule is an aggregate of two or more atoms in a definite arrangement held together by covalent chemical bonds.

Not all molecules are held together by covalent bonds, an example being DNA which is held together by hydrogen bonds. Moreover, most supermolecules are held together by non-covalent bonds. It would be correct to say that:

 * In chemistry, a molecule is a aggregate of two or more atoms in a definite arrangement held together by electromagnetic forces, such as covalent bonds.

This would be all inclusive. --Sadi Carnot 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Purists would probably insist that any given strand of DNA consists of TWO molecules, not one. The real problem is that the chemical properties and structure of molecules are determined by other than their covalent bonds (the hydrogen bonds of DNA and those that determine the teriary structures of proteins, etc). If we define molecules chemically, we need to include all kinds of bonds. If we define them physically (as in a gas) we don't require any bonds at all. So the LEAD should continue to consist of paragraphs, each of which gives one of the several different definitions of "molecule" in use by chemists and physicists, under various circumstances. They aren't all the same, and they don't have to be. If we can find ONE definition that fits them all, it's not OUR failing. The word has many uses and meanings, that's all. Sorry, but sometimes science is like that. Definitions change. Doctors still can't agree on what constitutes a "fever"! And they keep changing the definition of "diabetes". And organic chemists can't even agree on whether or not organic compounds have to have hydrogen in them. When this happens, you simply have to summarize conflicting uses and points of view, and pass on. And you reverters, beware.  The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple (Wilde). The guy trying to say something additional by adding an expansion, is probably right.  S  B Harris 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Expand, yes. But the basic bonding within molecules is covalent. Add info regarding hydrogen and other bonding in and between supermolecules, but the basic starting definition differentiates between covalently bonded molecules and ionic compounds. The electromagnetic forces bit is far too general - start specific and then expand. Vsmith 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, I provided a definition based on a widely used text reference. A modification of that definition to not be supported by the reference is problematic. Our function here is not to define based on our background in biochemistry or whatever, or our original research, but to report existing info. A basic definition following an introductory level text, followed by expansion/clarification for other usages is preferred. Vsmith 18:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * "Existing info" includes how working biochemists use the term. So it needs to be included in the definition. There is no such thing as a "basic" definition when it comes to something like molecules. This is due to the fact that most people working with molecules are somewhat sophisticated, don't you know. The basic bonding in SOME molecules is entirely covalent, and in others it's not. If you have a crystal of human hemoglobin, the hemoglobin "molecules" in it are composed of protein tetramers, which are held together with hydrogen bonds. Worse still, these tetramers in the crystal are held to each other with hydrogen bonds, too-- just not quite so strong ones. Basically, a "molecule" is a chemically-defined repeating unit which you find in a covalent solid or liquid, which "explains" the chemistry of the stuff, without having to go to larger structures. For non-covalent materials like metals or ionic solids, all bets are off and we don't speak of molecules. For network covalent solids like graphite or diamond all bets are off and we don't speak of molecules. For gases, it's easy: "molecules" are the gas particles bouncing around and separated by large empty spaces of vacuum, no matter what their structure. S  B Harris 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Vsmith, you are very inflexible and you argue in a way that contradicts yourself. Specifically, I was the one who originally provided a definition based on a widely used text reference (see: April 24, 2006 edit):

 * In chemistry, a molecule is an aggregate of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by special forces. (Chang, Chemistry 6th Ed.)

It was you who modified that definition so to make the situation problematic. You state that your widely used 4th edition text supposedly replaced my 6th edition text. Sounds backward to me? --Sadi Carnot 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, here are more “textbook” definitions:

 * Molecule – a definite group of atoms that are chemically bonded together, i.e. tightly connected by attractive forces. (Ebbing, General Chemistry, 3rd Ed.)

 * Molecule – a chemical combination of two or more atoms. (Brown, LeMay, Bursten, Chemistry – the Central Science, 9th Ed.)

 * Molecule – a group of atoms bonded to one another. (Pauling, General Chemistry, 3rd Ed.)

I hope these definitions clarify my point; I will now change the definition accordingly per these defintions and the above vote. --Sadi Carnot 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this vote? This is a supposed discussion, not a vote. Inflexible? Simply said start simple and then expand the definition to cover variables introduced by biomolecules, polymers and supermolecules. Covalent bonds are the most prevalent bonds within molecules - especially simple species such as water, methane, ammonia, etc. The additional text defs provided do indicate a lack of rigor among text writers - the definitions are quite vague and could include almost anything. And that held together by special forces bit makes it sound like a military thing -- leastwise that's the image that special forces pops into my head. Cheers, Vsmith 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, I vote 'for' :-) Everyone is right and the views expressed above actually complement each other. I personally tend to favor this current version of the introduction:

 * molecule - an aggregate of two or more atoms in a definite arrangement held together by chemical bonds.

 * as a very balanced one. I guess it is as difficult to define a molecule as it is to define a planet, and scientists' subjectivism and conflicting egos will always complicate matters, no doubt. --Unconcerned 03:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I concur (vote) with Unconcerned and SBharris. This definition is all inclusive.  Moreover, both the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry and the Barnes & Noble Essential Dictionary of Science state that a molecule can be a group of atoms held by either covalent, ionic, or coordinate bonds, thus "chemical bond" is the generic label for all of these types of bonds as well as all others, such as "hydrogen bonding", "non-covalent bonding", etc.,  I hope this wraps this discussion up.  Thanks:  --Sadi Carnot 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So, is sodium chloride composed of molecules? How about silica or diamond? Or graphite? And how about a protein, DNA? How about acetic acid dimers in gas phase? If you ask me, the answers would be no, no, no, no, yes, two different, two identical. Chemical bonds seem a bit loose for a definition. Does it include ionic bonds? --Rifleman 82 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Sodium chloride is a molecule in the gas phase, but not in the solid. I think the key is that a molecule needs to be "discrete" as opposed to "infinite", but the distinction is sometimes blurry. - Itub 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Concur with Itub. --Sadi Carnot 08:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica defines a molecule as: "the smallest identifiable unit into which a pure substance can be divided and still retain the composition and chemical properties of that substance." The definition paragraph says this breaks down but offers no citation. Reading this discussion I see that various chemistry encyclopedia's offer different definitions but none seem to refute the Britannica definition. We should keep in mind that wikipedia should be accessible to the largest audience possible and not just to specialists. Please review the copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica article at:

If there is no comment regarding my discussion post within a reasonable amount of time I will be inclined to change the first paragraph to match the Britannica definition.

sabbetius 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Sabbetius

 * There are problems with Britannica's definition since "rocks, salts, and metals, are composed of atoms or ions, but are not made of molecules." I think that the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition is reflected in the intro paragraph. In fact I think the first paragraph is a pretty good since it reveals the fact there are many different definitions. I would be opposed to changing the paragraph to more closely match Britannica. M stone 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Which compounds are not composed of molecules? Wouldn't rocks and metals just be formed by more complicated molecules that would require less effort to break apart, and thus lose their essential properties? I still do not understand why the Britannica definition is not applicable.sabbetius 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I move to revert to the EB definition, or at the very least mention it prominently in the intro paragraph. No conclusive argument has been offered on why we should disregard it. The definition of a "molecule" is a stipulative definition: how can there be problems with a stipulative definition (unless, of course, it's either too vague, or it doesn't outline the boundaries of any class of instances whatsoever (note that none of these are faults of the EB definition))? You may argue that the definition is not useful or something similar, but certainly not that it "breaks down" in some unspecified manner. Aqualung (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the molecule
Moved to: Talk:History of the molecule

Definition of molecules does not require bonds!
Despite the fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority of molecules are composed of greater than one atom this is not a requirement! The definition of a molecule is the smallest component of a pure compound that retains all properties of the compound. This is a practical definition. A pure compound is composed of only one kind of molecule. This is what scientists understood before they understood the concept that bonding. Of course noble gases are molecules despite the fact that the are monoatomic! If you use this definition then the questions that are being posed can be answered by the definition instead of intuition. If you don't believe me then try to stump me. M stone 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not publish your original thoughts - please provide references to reliable sources. Cacycle 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Common knowlege does not equal orginal research. M stone 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We did allow for monatomic molecules (one atom, no bonds) in the LEAD paragraph, though we didn't qualify the first sentence to allow for the qualifying sentence which would come right after (I think we should have). But simply defining molecules as the smallest unit which retains all the properties, or even all the chemical properties of the bulk compound, is not really an easy way out, either. The reason is that really small aggregates of atoms (of an element, for example) can have quite different properties than the same atoms taken singly or in bulk. Surface tension and wetness and viscosity are obvious physical properties which depend on sheer numbers. But even chemistry depends to a shocking extent on surface properties, and nanoparticles of network solids will have different properties the further you want to subdivide them. Metals in colloidal dispersions are famous for catalytic properties not seen in other forms. You may argue that this only means they never have molecules in the usual sense. But it's much easier to define a "molecule" as that common aggregate which you often seen flying through the vacuum, in a MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer. S B Harris 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the purity qualification addresses some of the points you have made. In other word if define the compound as being pure then you are implying that it is only composed of one type of component. However, you are correct that some properties do not scale. Thus I propose a revision that The definition of a molecule is the smallest component of a pure compound that retains all inherent properties of the compound. M stone 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the most sensible definition of molecule should include monatomic entities such as noble gases. Unfortunately, all the commonly accepted definitions, including IUPAC's, require that molecules have at least two atoms. So that's what we must report in Wikipedia. --Itub 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I am reversing my earlier statement after checking around further it does seem that most definitions of molecules require at least one covalent bond. I think as it stands the current definition is good.  Older definitions do seem to have some drawbacks. M stone 21:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

edits to definition and introductory section
Cacycle, you have just reverted the introductory section of that article to a vulnerable state that in the past had justified a long series of wild edits and contributions. The version you have modified was the result of a cooperative effort of capturing the essence of various definitions and aspects, and --rather than being stale-- it was relatively stable for a long period of time because of the achieved consensus. Please take a look at the history and the discussion page.

 * I was aware of that discussion and decided to be bold. There is no reason to keep a bad version just because it is "stable". Cacycle 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The IUPAC definition by itself is not sufficient for the broader scope of this article as it is given from the narrow perspective of theoretical chemistry. The multiple citations referenced by user:Sadi_Carnot as note 1 are proof of the wide inconsistence in defining a molecule among authoritative academia circles.

 * My rewrite did not change this (beside the uncharged part which we might move somewhere else):

In science, a molecule is a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by strong chemical bondss. Only in the kinetic theory of gaseses the term molecule is often used for any gaseous particle regardless of their composition.
 * Cacycle 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the short discussion about divisibility that you have wiped was provided in support of that most general definition involving the "smallest particle..." and is of historical importance (see for ex. here as well as history of the molecule)

 * It is not wiped, it is still there in the intro. I have just removed some unnecessary redundant introduction:

Molecules and atoms are the smallest particles of pure chemical substances that still retain their composition and chemical properties.

 * Cacycle 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is incorrect to include NaCl in the discussion about network solids. That discussion was intended to differentiate the concepts of covalent vs. molecular.

 * If you read it again you will see that sodium chloride is an example of a salt, not of a network solid.

No typical molecule can be defined for ionic (salts) and covalent crystals (network solids) which are composed of repeating unit cells that extend either in a plane (such as in graphite) or three-dimensionally (such as in diamond or sodium chloride).

 * Cacycle 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the general message here is that most things were included in the article for a reason, and hope you will reconsider your next edit, but for now I am revering to the mentioned version and would appreciate your discussing the intended contribution on the talk page--Unconcerned 03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I was very well aware of the above discussion and I decided to be bold and to remove the clutter and to correct were needed. Please see my remarks above in your posting. I still stand to my edits and hope that we can reinstate my recent edits soon. Cacycle 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * My nitpicking version changes and tracking my own contributions didn't help with staying objective. I actually like how it reads overall and apologize for not making the extra effort to read the whole intro and overview before dismissing everything.  I only hope it will resist "innovative" rewrites as it has seen in the past (or reverts from superficial users like myself for that matter.)--Unconcerned 05:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks :-) I have updated the intro about the uncharged requirement. Feel free to edit this version for a better style (e.g. the sodium chloride sentence). Cacycle 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The smallest molecular species?
I think that the statement "The smallest molecular species that has a bond is the hydrogen ion molecule H2+, comprised of two protons bonded together by the sharing of one electron" is incorrect. I would assume that removing an electron would increase the bond length and thus H2+ would be larger in size than to nuetral H2. H2+ is the molecule with the least number of total electrons, however I am not sure why this is important. I think that this statement needs to be corrected or referenced. M stone 06:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I put that there, because it is a very notable fact, according to Linus Pauling, from his The Nature of the Chemical Bond (the book known as the "bible of modern chemistry"), ch. 1, where he states that "the simplist of all the molecules is the hydrogen molecule-ion, H2+", and the "simplist of all the chemical bonds is the one-electron bond. If you want to understand the quantum mechanical nature of chemistry, according to Pauling, this is the place to start.  Thats why its important. --Sadi Carnot 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

 * H2+ is important in theoretical chemistry because it is the "smallest" molecule in terms of numbers of particles. The Schrodinger equation for it can be solved without having to worry about electron-electron repulsion. Of course, all of this is not especially relevant for a section about molecular size, where the statement that you removed used to be. More than "smallest", I would say "simplest". Whether H2+ belongs in this article at all is not too clear to me, but I think that it would deserve mention if we had a short section about "quantum theory of molecules". --Itub 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that H2+ is relevant as the "simplest" molecule. M stone 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I should add that H2+ is not even a molecule by the lead definition in the article, because it is not electrically neutral! ;-) However, theoretical chemists often call it a molecule. It all depends on the context. --Itub 09:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be added to define molecular species, particularly molecular ions such as H2+ and common ions like sulfate. I'm not sure where though. Any ideas? --Bduke 09:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Probably in a new section. The sections are pretty independent so the order is not obvious. Perhaps after the overview? --Itub 10:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems like someone has removed the "smallest molecule" tidbit from the article; I will re-add it per Linus Pauling's ref. --Sadi Carnot 12:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It was never removed, I moved it to the Theoretical aspects section. Now that you added it back, there is a large amount of needlessly redundant repetition. ;-) --Itub 13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Size images (in angstroms)

 * I didn't see that bottom part. In any event, I cut a sentence out, it seems ok now. Also, I think we should get some images in the "molecular size" header section, so that people can get a feel for what an "angstrom" is.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that consensus was reached on H2+. It is confusing to talk about size in terms of the number of particles. H2 is the smallest molecule because it has the shortest bond length. H2+ is the simplest molecule because it is composed of the fewest number of particles. However, H2+ is larger than H2. I have changed things back to previous consensus. would appriciate if a bond length were found for H2+ before it was readded. M stone 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Stone. BTW, the bond length in H2+ is 1.06 Å. --Itub 04:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Molecular compound here
I'm not sure I understand what Molecular compound is trying to say. I think it is meaning molecules and so anything new should be here. It apparently is to contrast with Ionic compound; but, I don't believe molecular compound is a common usage. ChemGardener 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now a redirect, the content had many errors. Cacycle 04:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Human molecule?
Moved to Talk:Human molecule. --Sadi Carnot 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Small molecule redirect
In Molecular biology the "small molecule" name applies to organic molecule that are not biopolymers and that are not biologically inert (they are small as a consequence of not being a polymer). it redirects here, which is not good. So I will make an article and see what I can conjure up. Help very welcome. --Squidonius (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question, Atoms/Element
I know a few elements that combine with others to form a molecule, like:
 * Hydrogen - 1 bond
 * Oxygen - 2
 * Nitrogen - 3
 * Carbon - 4

What other atoms/elements are there? Please awnser Androo123 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * see Category:Homonuclear diatomic molecules some may also have more than two atoms, like trisulfur, tricarbon, ozone and allotropes of sulfur, allotropes of phosphorus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now made category:Homonuclear triatomic molecules. Most atoms of an element will combine with another or the same to make a di- molecule, but we do not ahve articles on most. If there are more atoms, a tri- molecule will form for some, and some will form small clusters (eg metals). These are only stable as a dilute gas, and the metal will condense to a liquid or a solid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links are all spam
I think that external links are all spam. I just noticed based on the most recent addition. I think they should all be erased. M stone (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that "molecule of the month" is spam. This is an interesting site that is recognized by chemistry web pages across the world and has been for 10 years or so. It almost is notable enough for an article. I have no comment on the others. --Bduke (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be more appropriate to make a "Molecule of the month" article and list under "See also". I will delete the rest and leave it up to you.   M stone (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition
"... a molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable, electrically neutral group..."

"The simplest of molecules is the hydrogen molecule-ion, H2+ ..."

P99am (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Does seem rather out of place as it is a polyatomic ion ... but it is used in the theoretical section as "the example" for the Schrödinger equation "easy solution". Not sure that it really needs to be here without further clarification as it is not a "simple molecule" and not neutral - just adds confusion as is. Vsmith (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main problem is not in the hydrogen ion, but in the definition. It may be better to say: Not "is defined".--P99am (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe ...
 * Molecules are called ...
 * Typically, a molecule considered as ...

 * I disagree. Definitions should place clear boundaries because they are meant to delineate simple concepts rather than objective truth.  Science has repeatedly shown that physical reality branches into layers of ever increasing complexity.  What we typically do is come up with additional sets of clearly defined concepts rather than tweak and redefine existing ones.  Thus, the molecule definition will never be capable of describing everything scientists call molecule these days without losing clarity and usability.  The definition has historically branched from simply molecule to monatomic and polyatomic molecule to the quantum chemical concept of everything in a potential well is a molecule, when, in fact, the simplest, original definition will always give the clearest picture of what this concept is all about: smallest particle of a substance still preserving its chemical properties. Just my $0.02. --Unconcerned (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your definition is much better than given in this article. Nevertheless, it does not make clarity. And no one definition of the molecule create clarity. And it's good. We need explanations, not definitions.--P99am (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course we need both definitions and explanations. They're not mutually exclusive.  Just FYI, Wikipedia has a very good summary of what very smart people think a good definition is.  Definitions provide the skeleton, the structural framework for solid knowledge.  I don't see how one can build a good explanation of a concept without a crisp, solid definition at its foundation.  Just another 2 cents' worth.  Keep it goin' and soon there'll be enough cents to buy a beer ;-) --Unconcerned (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

molecules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.111.30 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

image
Can this image be added to this article? That is the best image of a molecule in existence. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? S  B Harris 05:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is a fair use image, which is copyrighted by a flickr user (probably IBM employee). It may not be used for more than one article on wikipedia - in this case, pentacene - as the only available image illustrating the object of the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

image show now ¢$₯₣ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.88.30 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add some Photos of molecules from real life
i believe that an article about molecules should show at least 3-5 photos of molecules from microscopes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.15.64 (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with adding images about molecules from microscopes is that the most powerful microscopes today can barely even see a molecule. What you would see is a huge glob that has fuzzy edges--i.e. not useful to the understanding of a molecule. Devinthepeng (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The first image of the page

The text under this image is faulty. It states that the middle and left images are 3d, and that the right one is 2d. The problem is that the right one also is (partially) 3d. As you guys know the way the bonds are displayed gives information about the invisible z-axis. It's not very obvious and more of a wrong nuance, but I do think something should be changed.

Potential solutions are, change the text and change the image.

The information given by the text is valid and relevant, so I think it is preferable to change the image.

What do you guys think?

Bartiosos (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
Ionic bonds: Molecules with ionic bonds are quite uncommonly encountered, sure gaseous sodium fluoride may be ionic and a molecule, but any liquids or solids that use ionic bonds will form networks, and not be molecular.
 * My feeling is that we should stick to talking about covalent bonding here, except to explain why it doesn't apply to ionic or metallic bonding. --Oolong (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Target audience: Our target audience may be grade 6 or 7 students, so some of the more technical stuff needs more explaining. Perhaps we need more comparisons for scaling. Perhaps we need to give numbers of molecules (mols).

Referencing is poor, likely because our writers know this stuff, and do not neeed to look at a text book.

Categories of molecules.

Shapes of molecules (include symmetries)

properties as a gas.

Properties when condensed, liquids and solids

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Polyatomic ions
I think that the statement in the article that organic chemists include polyatomic ions in the definition of "molecule" is, clearly, not supported, according to my experience in organic chemistry for 50 years. If this definition is found in one or two sources, it certainly should be considered an "outlier" ` Frankxxxx (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

molecules short answer
molecule is made up of more than one atom Balabharathi.v (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

info from lists of molecules
I have removed some irrelevnt info from lists of molecules i shall copy it here in case someone wants to incirpartate into this article:

Amedeo Avogadro created the word "molecule". His 1811 paper "Essay on Determining the Relative Masses of the Elementary Molecules of Bodies" states, according to Partington's A Short History of Chemistry, that:

"The smallest particles of gases are not necessarily simple atoms, but are made up of a certain number of these atoms united by attraction to form a single molecule."

Molecule
If two or more than two atoms combine to form molecule Then how is He Ne molecule as they are monoatomic and no atoms are combined??? The right definition of molecule is the smallest particles of matter which can exist independently as separate unit Asadalimukhlis (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment
— Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Molecule


text:
Paisley

Paisley may refer to:

 * Paisley (design), an ornamental Persian pattern or motif commonly identified with the town of Paisley, Renfrewshire, in west Scotland

People

 * Paisley (name), including a list of people with the name
 * Lord Paisley, in the peerage of Scotland

Places

 * Paisley, Renfrewshire, Scotland, where the Paisley pattern was popularized
 * Paisley, Florida, United States
 * Paisley, Oregon, United States
 * Paisley, Pennsylvania, United States
 * Paisley, Ontario, Canada
 * Paisley, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
 * Paisley, South Australia
 * Diocese of Paisley, an ecclesiastical territory of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland
 * Paisley Caves, Oregon, United States
 * Paisley Islet, an islet off Kangaroo Island, South Australia

Other

 * Paisley (Scottish Parliament constituency)
 * Paisley (UK Parliament constituency) (1832–1983), corresponding to the Scottish town
 * Paisley Grammar School, in Paisley, Renfrewshire
 * Paisley Park, a record label owned by the musician Prince; also the name of his estate
 * Paisley Terrier, a breed of dog, ancestor of the Yorkshire Terrier
 * Paisley Underground, a style of 1960s influenced music, usually associated with the 1980s Los Angeles music scene

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

title: Paisley


text:
Cebes

Cebes of Thebes (Κέβης Θηβαῖος, gen.: Κέβητος; c. 430 – 350 BC ) was an Ancient Greek philosopher from Thebes remembered as a disciple of Socrates. One work, known as the Pinax (Πίναξ) or Tabula, attributed to Cebes still survives, but it is believed to be a composition by a pseudonymous author of the 1st or 2nd century AD.

Life
Cebes was a disciple of Socrates and Philolaus, and a friend of Simmias of Thebes. He is one of the speakers in the Phaedo of Plato, in which he is represented as an earnest seeker after virtue and truth, keen in argument and cautious in decision. Xenophon says he was a member of Socrates' inner circle, and a frequent visitor to the hetaera, Theodote, in Athens. He is also mentioned by Plato in the Crito and Epistle XIII.

Three dialogues, the Hebdome, the Phrynichus, and the Pinax or Tabula, are attributed to him by the Suda and Diogenes Laërtius. The two former are lost, and most scholars deny the authenticity of the Tabula on the ground of material and verbal anachronisms.

The Tablet of Cebes

The Tablet of Cebes is probably by a pseudonymous author of the 1st or 2nd century. The work professes to be an interpretation of an allegorical picture of a tablet on which the whole of human life with its dangers and temptations was symbolically represented, and which is said to have been dedicated by someone in the temple of Cronus at Athens or Thebes. The author introduces some youths contemplating the tablet, and an old man who steps among them undertakes to explain its meaning. It is intended to show that only the proper development of our mind and the possession of real virtues can make us truly happy. The author develops the Platonic theory of pre-existence, and shows that true education consists not in mere erudition, but rather in the formation of character. Parallels are often drawn between this work and John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress.

The Tabula has been widely translated both into European languages and into Arabic (the latter version published with the Greek text and Latin translation by Claudius Salmasius in 1640). It has often been printed together with the Enchiridion of Epictetus. Separate editions have been issued by CS Jerram (with introduction and notes, 1878), Karl Praechter (1893), and many others. An English translation and commentary by John T. Fitzgerald and L. Michael White was published in 1983.

title: Cebes


text:
Bolívar Department

Bolívar is a department of Colombia. It was named after one of the original nine states of the United States of Colombia. It is located to the north of the country, extending roughly north–south from the Caribbean coast at Cartagena near the mouth of the Magdalena River, then south along the river to a border with Antioquia Department. The departments of Sucre and Córdoba are located to the west, and Atlántico Department to the north and east (most of the border formed by the Canal del Dique). Across the Magdalena River to the east is Magdalena Department. The flag of the department bears a resemblance to the flag of Lithuania.

Its capital is Cartagena de Indias. Other important cities include Magangué, El Carmen de Bolívar and Turbaco.

Depresión Momposina

 * 1) Cicuco
 * 2) Hatillo de Loba
 * 3) Margarita
 * 4) Santa Cruz de Mompox
 * 5) San Fernando
 * 6) Talaiga Nuevo

Dique

 * 1) Arjona
 * 2) Arroyo Hondo
 * 3) Calamar
 * 4) Cartagena
 * 5) Clemencia
 * 6) Mahates
 * 7) San Cristobal
 * 8) San Estanislao
 * 9) Santa Catalina
 * 10) Santa Rosa
 * 11) Turbaco
 * 12) Turbana
 * 13) Villanueva

Loba

 * 1) Altos del Rosario
 * 2) Barranco de Loba
 * 3) Brazuelo de Papayal
 * 4) El Peñón
 * 5) Regidor
 * 6) Rio Viejo
 * 7) San Martín de Loba

Magdalena Medio

 * 1) Arenal del Sur
 * 2) Cantagallo, Bolívar
 * 3) Morales
 * 4) Norosí
 * 5) San Pablo
 * 6) Santa Rosa del Sur
 * 7) Simití

Mojana

 * 1) Achí
 * 2) Magangué
 * 3) Montecristo
 * 4) Pinillos
 * 5) San Jacinto del Cauca
 * 6) Tiquisio

Montes de Maria

 * 1) El Carmen de Bolívar
 * 2) Córdoba
 * 3) El Guamo
 * 4) María La Baja
 * 5) San Jacinto
 * 6) San Juan Nepomuceno
 * 7) Soplaviento
 * 8) Zambrano

History
In today's villages of Maria La Baja, Sincerín, El Viso, and Mahates and Rotinet, excavations have uncovered the remains of maloka-type buildings, directly related to the early Puerto Hormiga settlements.

Miscellaneous

 * Postage stamps of Bolívar
 * List of Caribbean islands

title: Bolívar Department


text:
List of people who survived assassination attempts

This is a list of survivors of assassination attempts who were not heads of state, listed chronologically.

For survivors who were heads of state, see List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts. For successful assassination attempts, see List of assassinations.


text:
User:Seanos

asdas

title: User:Seanos


text:
Grelling–Nelson paradox

The Grelling–Nelson paradox arises from the question of whether the term "non-self-descriptive" is self-descriptive. It was formulated in 1908 by Kurt Grelling and Leonard Nelson, and is sometimes mistakenly attributed to the German philosopher and mathematician Hermann Weyl thus occasionally called Weyl's paradox or Grelling's paradox. It is closely related to several other well-known paradoxes, in particular, the barber paradox and Russell's paradox. It is an antinomy, or a semantic self-referential paradox.

Paradox

Suppose one interprets the adjectives "autological" and "heterological" as follows:
 * 1) An adjective is autological (sometimes homological) if it describes itself. For example, the English word "English" is autological, as are "unhyphenated" and "pentasyllabic".
 * 2) An adjective is heterological if it does not describe itself. Hence "long" is a heterological word (because it is not a long word), as are "hyphenated" (because it has no hyphen) and "monosyllabic" (because it has more than one syllable).

All adjectives, it would seem, must be either autological or heterological, for each adjective either describes itself, or it does not. Problems arise in a number of instances, however.

Paradoxical cases
The Grelling–Nelson paradox arises when we consider the adjective "heterological". One can ask: Is "heterological" a heterological word? If the answer is "no", then "heterological" is autological. This leads to a contradiction, for in this case "heterological" does not describe itself: it must be a heterological word. But if the answer is "yes", then "heterological" is heterological. This again leads to a contradiction, because if the word "heterological" describes itself, it is autological.

 * Is "heterological" a heterological word?
 * no → "heterological" is autological → "heterological" describes itself → "heterological" is heterological, contradiction
 * yes → "heterological" is heterological → "heterological" does not describe itself → "heterological" is not heterological, contradiction

The paradox can be eliminated, without changing the meaning of "heterological" where it was previously well-defined, by modifying the definition of "heterological" slightly to hold all nonautological words except "heterological". But "nonautological" is subject to the same paradox, for which this evasion is not applicable because the rules of English uniquely determine its meaning from that of "autological". A similar slight modification to the definition of "autological" (such as declaring it false of "nonautological" and its synonyms) might seem to correct that, but the paradox still remains for synonyms of "autological" and "heterological" such as "self-descriptive" and "non–self-descriptive", whose meanings also would need adjusting, and the consequences of those adjustments would then need to be pursued, and so on. Freeing English of the Grelling–Nelson paradox entails considerably more modification to the language than mere refinements of the definitions of "autological" and "heterological", which need not even be in the language for the paradox to arise. The scope of these obstacles for English is comparable to that of Russell's paradox for mathematics founded on sets.

Arbitrary cases
One may also ask whether "autological" is autological. It can be chosen consistently to be either:
 * if we say that "autological" is autological and then ask whether it applies to itself, then yes, it does, and thus is autological;
 * if we say that "autological" is not autological and then ask whether it applies to itself, then no, it does not, and thus is not autological.

This is the opposite of the situation for heterological: while "heterological" logically cannot be autological or heterological, "autological" can be either. (It cannot be both, as the category of autological and heterological cannot overlap.)

In logical terms, the situation for "autological" is:

while the situation for "heterological" is:

Ambiguous cases
One may also ask whether "loud" is autological or heterological. If said loudly, "loud" is autological; otherwise, it is heterological. This shows that some adjectives cannot be unambiguously classified as autological or heterological. Newhard sought to eliminate this problem by taking Grelling's Paradox to deal specifically with word types as opposed to word tokens.

Similarities with Russell's paradox
The Grelling–Nelson paradox can be translated into Russell's paradox in the following way. First, one must identify each adjective with the set of objects to which that adjective applies. So, for example, the adjective "red" is equated with the set of all red objects. In this way, the adjective "pronounceable" is equated with the set of all pronounceable things, one of which is the word "pronounceable" itself. Thus, an autological word is understood as a set, one of whose elements is the set itself. The question of whether the word "heterological" is heterological becomes the question of whether the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contains itself.

title: Grelling–Nelson paradox


text:
User:Dankelley

Occupation
Professor of Physical oceanography at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Professional Interests
Ocean mixing, internal waves, and convection.

Personal Interests
Running, painting, reading, open-source software design (e.g. http://gri.sourceforge.net and http://dankelley.github.com/oce/)

title: User:Dankelley


text:
Talk:All horses are the same color

Old talk
I moved this:
 * A similar paradox is a proof (by Raymond Smullyan) that all horses have thirteen legs. First take all your horses and paint them red. Now look at the horses. If all the horses have thirteen legs, then we can stop. But what if one or more of the horses don't have thirteen legs? Well, that would be a horse of a different colour! However, we've painted all the horses red, so it would actually be a horse of the same colour. Hence, we have a contradiction, so by reductio ad absurdum, all horses have thirteen legs.

I don't see why a horse that doesn't have 13 legs would have a different color. It would still be red, like all the horses. AxelBoldt 20:02 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * It's a phrase: "horse of a different colour". Martin 21:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * What does that phrase mean? AxelBoldt 20:55 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I would like to know too. In any case it is a word play, not a logical paradox, and doesn't belong here. -- Arvindn 06:58 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * To answer Axel, "horse of a different colour" is a (chiefly American? British?) slang phrase that means roughly "one that does not fit the expected pattern". So this example is cute but has nothing to do with math or logic.  Incidentally, I have usually heard this logical paradox referred to as "the billiard ball paradox", not the "horse paradox", proving that all billiard balls are the same colour. -- Revolver

 * Smullyan's argument has everything to do with logic: the ontological argument is a logical argument for the existence of God that many believe is flawed due to semantic issues, just as Smullyan's "proof" is flawed. To be sure, it has nothing to do with formal logic, or with math. Martin 20:46 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Agreed, Smullyan's argument is an example of a proof that is flawed based on semantics, so yes it is related to logic. My formal bias shines through.  I wouldn't say that it is "similar" to the original horse paradox, though, because the horse paradox fallacy is based on a technical (i.e. purely mathematical) mistake in applying induction, namely the assumption that two sets have nonempty intersection, when in fact they do not.  This is not a semantic mistake.  It's a very interesting example to consider if you're discussing paradoxes in general.  I'm just not sure if it's useful here, because it's a different type of logical paradox (a paradox of a different colour...sorry :-/), and because the root of the paradox lies is a fairly culture-specific slang expression that may not be familiar to a lot of readers outside North America or England.  With regard to the name, I didn't mean to suggest it should be changed or anything, but I have heard "billiard ball paradox" so often, that there should probably be an entry for this pointing to the horse paradox entry.  (I haven't tried to make any of these pointers yet.) Revolver

 * Maybe if there was a wordplay paradox article, or something? I see your point, though. I wouldn't really mind if it was moved elsewhere - as long as there's a link from here to there :) Martin 16:22 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Good grief, I looked up "billiard ball paradox" on google, and apparently this name is shared with a paradox in theoretical physics about time travel. Too many paradoxes, not enough names! Revolver

 * OK, I guess I'm highly biased towards formal logic too. In my mind "logical paradox" is implicitly "formal logical paradox". BTW, the paradox page implies that too:

 * The identification of a paradox based on seemingly simple and reasonable concepts has often led to significant advances in science, philosophy and mathematics.

 * Look at this one which is a more obvious word-play: "A penny is better than nothing. Nothing is better than eternal bliss. Therefore a penny is better than eternal bliss." Would you consider that a logical paradox? (Just to see how far apart our viewpoints are :-) -- Arvindn 04:05 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I think I would (the version I heard related to peanut butter sandwiches). Quite an important one, imo, because it shows why you probably shouldn't reify concepts like "nothing" and "existence". But hey, I'm an amateur. Martin 16:22 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy with leaving Smullyan's story in since it is amusing, but I also wouldn't call it a paradox, and I don't think it has anything to do with logic or semantics. If it did, it could be formulated in any language, but it only works in English. AxelBoldt 02:41 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Smullyan's story, apart from the language-dependent "flaw" mentioned above, also has a logical fallacy. Just if one or more horses don't have 13 legs, we can't say they don't belong to the group. In fact (in our world) they form the whole group (since all horses have 4 legs). We can only deduce that a horse that doesn't have 13 legs is of a different color (doesn't belong to the group) if we also know there is also a horse with 13 legs. -- Paddu 18:50 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that should be added. AxelBoldt 23:02 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I always thought that "the horse paradox" referred to the story I added. It was what I thought of when I first saw the article title.

I know another "paradox" which is actually a word play and is somewhat related to horses. Don't know, maybe it sounds quite silly in English, but in Russian it's a bit confusing and funny.

 * Let's prove that unicorns exist. We mean true unicorns here, not rhinoceroses or something else, we mean a mythical creature that resembles a horse with a single straight horn on its forehead.

 * To prove that set something exists, we can for instance, prove that some specific subclass of it is non-empty. To prove that rectangles exist, it suffices to prove that squares exist.

 * So, let's prove that there is a subclass of unicorns that is non-empty, i.e. that exists. For determinancy, let's prove that existing unicorns exist.  First, consider that existing unicorns don't exist.  But that's a contradiction---how can something that exists (existing something) not exist?  Therefore, we've come to conclusion that existing unicorns exist.

 * Now, if some (existing) unicorns exist, this means that unicorns in general exist. Statement proven.

Don't take this seriously ;)

 * Paul Pogonyshev 23:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

11 horse paradox
The puzzle needs either a wriggle wording (I have inserted the words "in his stable") or expanding in some way, to explain how the Lawyers horse "counts". E.G. the lawyer (or in some verions a folk-tale hero type) says "I will solve your problem. I'll lend you my horse....")

Is this an entry for bad jokes or serious conundrums?

Removal of other paradoxes
In the VfD discussion Votes for deletion/Horse paradox, I count 4 votes for keeping only the first section, 2 votes for keeping the whole article, 6 keep/cleanup votes that do not specify what to do, and 5 delete/merge votes. Therefore, I deleted the other "paradoxes". -- Jitse Niesen 01:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Related Paradoxes
I discuss this more to bring light to something... What do you think about the relationship between this paradox and Paradox of the heap? They are related, in that induction is used. But they aren't quite the same. This paradox is about using induction to prove the validity of something for which you haven't proved the base case. The latter paradox is more about human speech, and the difficulty of defining or using logic to define what would seem to be something quite simple to define.

Granted, the current (latter) article could be improved somewhat (how I'm not sure, but some sourcing would be nice). I just wonder what if any mention could be stated in this article in relation to the other article, or if anything needs to be said at all.

Root4(one) 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say, the picture of that horse is so useless in this article. Why on earth is it there? 128.135.230.204 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It's certainly not useless. I find it akin to some visualization/mnemonic tricks used to remember word definitions for tests like the SAT.  I mean, even though horses actually have nothing to do with the paradox, that is the paradox's name, so why not have a picture of a monochromatic horse? Root4(one) 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Polya?
I've seen this attributed to George Polya. Is that right? If so, the article should say so. Michael Hardy 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Say, assume, induce_________makes no sense.
Is there something missing about being one color? I see nothing to indicate that. The article has as follows: ''Now assume the truth of the statement for all sets of at most n horses. ... By the induction assumption, all horses in this set are the same color.''

If you just assume anything, and it's not true, is that a paradox?

Saying a horse with whatever is a different color is not necessarily true either. There is no establishing these facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.38.41 (talk • contribs).

 * No, you're just missing everything in the article completely. It says at the outset that this is about mathematical induction.  If you don't understand what that is (and it certainly appears that you don't), then you won't have any idea what's being said here until you find out what mathematical induction is.  There is something called an "induction hypothesis".  To find out what that is, read mathematical induction. Michael Hardy 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That did not offer any explanation. I see no reason to go to insults & not try to elaborate on the principle at hand. Please keep the maturity level to offering more help/info. Thank you though for the reference to the induction page. I will read that to educate myself further.68.180.38.41 01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I did not insult anyone. I said in order to understand this argument, it is necessary to understand what mathematical induction is, and I linked to the article on it. Michael Hardy 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry M[rs]. IP-address felt insulted, but I think Michael Hardy was helpful enough and polite. Linking is much better than explaining here. PJTraill (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Original version
Which book of Polya first introduces this paradox?

I've found the paradox as an exercise in his book "Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning (Volume I)" chapter VII exercise 17. But there is no mention to horses:

"Are any n numbers equal? You would say, No. Yet we can try to prove the contrary by mathematical induction. It may be more attractive however, to prove the assertion "Any n girls have eyes of the same color"."

Rend 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

not mathematical induction?
I'm not a logician but it seems to me there is another problem with the line of reasoning that hasn't been mentioned. Even ignoring that the case for 2 horses fails, this is not mathematical induction anyway.

Compare with this: If we had a proof (P) that all horses are white we could prove that one horse is white. My horse is white. Therefore the proof P is valid. Therefore all horses are white.

This is obviously flawed because my horse being white can occur even if not all horses are white. Similarly, we could argue that in the OP's 4 horse proof, having all horses in a group of 1 horse be the same colour can occur for reasons other than all horses being the same colour (as, indeed, it can).

For this to be mathematical induction we would have an argument along the lines of:

I have a proof (P) that shows for any size group of horses all of one colour, a group of one more horse will also be all the same colour. A group of one horse is a group of all one colour, therefore all groups are the same colour.

This is a correct form of argument but of course, since we don't have a proof P, it isn't true.

Thus, as well as the explanation due to 'special cases', there is also an explanation due to a flawed form of argument that only resembles mathematical induction. Fontwell (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't understand. This is in the form of mathematical induction, and the only flaw is the 2 case. Of course, it's much better written at Mathematical induction. Starting from an example of 5 horses seems very strange for anyone familiar with induction, and those not familiar with it will hardly be helped by it anyway. Can't we just copy the section from the MI article? -- Jao (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Why don't we replace it with a redirect to Mathematical induction?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with Jao. This may be the "form" of mathematical induction, but it has nothing to do with mathematics, because, (if I may attempt to explain things that are over my head) adding an unknown element to a set gives an unknown result and can't be approached inductively, and frankly I think it's one of the biggest horses*** articles in all of wikipedia.  72.177.123.145 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Eric

 * You're right, they are over your head. If out of a set of items, you can take any two of them and they have the same color, then all of them have the same color. That's the essential point of the mathematic induction being done here, that that case is important.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
"Color" and "colour" are currently mixed throughout the article. -- Jao (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm?
I don't see a paradox, what I see is a sad attempt to convince someone that a lunchbox is a stapler by removing real facts and making false statements upon obviously false statements. The article says that the groups of one have the same color, okay, now combine them back into the group of 5, oh look! a black horse, that's not brown! This is not a paradox!

Also, this is exactly like saying that all keys on a keyboard are the same, this is untrue, because you can't prove that q,w,e,r,t,y etc. are all 'q' (especially by grouping them into groups of one) because once combined into the group that originally brought up the question, you once again have "qwerty", not "qqqqqq"!

A paradox consists of two statements that seem true but contradict each other because one impossible fact was assumed or let possible. Paradox's are usually pointed out to prove something impossible, like the grandfather paradox: it involves killing, conception, and time travel, but something in the equation makes it a paradox because both sides ultimately contradict eachother, one part of this must be false or impossible. Killing someone is possible, being born is possible, therefore time travel must be impossible, and the fact that we never have accomplished--or even come close to--such a feat further proves that. The same thing can be said about uncyclopedia's 1=2 article, in which the proof is that 10 = 1, and 20 = 1, therefore 10 = 20, simplifying the equation by removing the powers (10 --> 1; 20 --> 2) ends in 1 = 2, but the false statment allowed true for this to seem true is that you can remove powers without changing the value of a number. This is wikipedia, not uncyclopedia, so don't make articles that seem like they came from uncyclopedia. This horse article is somthing I would expect from uncyclopedia: completely lacking of any and all logic. This article is 1 = 2, and somebody might even make an article based off of this equivalent to everything = cake.

Another really stupid paradox is the drinker's paradox, there is no contradiction what-so-ever, nothing but positives, maybe if the statement was "if one person is drinking, nobody is drinking" then it would make sense because this one person is also included, and therefore it can't be said that no one is drinking, because one person is. But this is not the case, in fact, the article says that when one person drinks, everyone drinks. Let's bring up the paradox formula again: Drinking is possible, Coincidence is possible, there is nothing here that is impossible, there is also no contradiction, but positive upon positive. The drinker article should really be removed because it makes no sense.

Unless someone can explain these articles without resorting to false and circular logic that ignores all common sense (like the two articles), AND I myself admit that you have a good point and that I agree (you can't just say something stupid or give a long mathematical equation and then proclaim that you are right, because you could be making it up), my argument stands undisputedly correct. Prove me wrong 168.103.126.103 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 * It's notable. It is not in Wikipedia's rules that we have to convince you of anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is in the rules to at least be coherent, and this "paradox" is not coherent if it implies that you can magically make all the keys on the keyboard "Q" just by saying "Q in a group of 1 is the same." 168.103.126.103 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's simple incorrect induction. It's not magic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

n=2 case is not the one that fails (notational confusion)
The section "Explanation" says

 * The argument above makes the implicit assumption that the two subsets of horses to which the induction assumption is applied have a common element. This is not true when n = 2, that is, when the original set only contains 2 horses.

 * Let the two horses be horse A and horse B. When horse A is removed, it is true that the remaining horses in the set are the same color (only horse B remains). If horse B is removed instead, this leaves a different set containing only horse A, which may or may not be the same color as horse B.

But this passage assumes wrongly that n is the size of the "original" set, that is, the one before removal. But in the problem statement the size of the original set is n+1, not n. From the first sentence of the problem statement: Let us consider a group consisting of n+1 horses.

So the second quoted paragraph deals with the case n+1=2 hence n=1. So I'm going to change "n=2" to "n=1" in the first quoted paragraph. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Proof by induction is often falsely presented as "First you prove the proposition to be true for n=1. Then under the assumption that it is true for n you prove it to be true for n+1. Then you are done." It need not be "true for n=1" but "true for a smallest value of n". The example with the horses comes in handy as an example where it can't be "n=1" since the smallest GROUP of horses is a pair of horses. And the proof by induction fails at the Base case: Two horses (who need not be the same color). (And it need not be n+1 either: "prove that this and that holds true for any odd number >7." 1) Prove it to be true for n=9. 2) Under the assumption that it is true for n prove it to be true for n+2.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.223.9.100 (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

unexpected hanging paradox
I added a link to the Unexpected hanging paradox, because it looks to me like another case of incorrect application of mathematical induction: after proving the judge's proposition false for the index case (Friday) the prisoner assumes the judge's proposition is true to prove that it is false for the previous day and so on through the entire week.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Could this be an alternative explanation?
Let H be the set of all horses. We set out to prove by induction that, for all n in N, if there are exactly n elements in H, then all horses are the same colour.

The base case is trivial since a single horse will always have the same colour as itself.

The induction hypothesis can be stated: If there are exactly n elements in H, then all horses will be the same colour.

Then we suppose that there are exactly n+1 elements in H. The problem is that the induction hypothesis is cannot be applied in this case. It can only be apply in the case that there are exactly n elements in H. It does not follow from the induction hypothesis that all sets of n horses are the same color. --Danchristensen (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of induction is incorrect. And no, I will not explain induction to you. Please take classes or read a book (or wikipedia :-). If you want to imp[orve thie article, please look for information in reliable sources which can be added here. Your own ideas cannot be used in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I've noticed that in several other places you have already been told that wikipedia is not a forum. Please stop distracting wikipedians from working on the wikipedia's task: building encyclopedia based on reliable sources. 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Explanation should simply reference the well-ordering principle
The reason that this is a fallacious "proof" is simply because it ignores the ordering requirement of mathematical induction. In order to apply mathematical induction, you must be able to assign a fixed ordering to the elements of the set under study. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#Equivalence_with_the_well-ordering_principle

As written, the inductive hypothesis "n horses are the same color" does not satisfy this requirement. A valid inductive hypothesis would instead say "the first n horses are the same color". Under this hypothesis, it would be impossible to assert that "any subset of n horses are the same color" because the hypothesis explicitly references the first n horses.

--James Monroe (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for this reasoning? Because what you write makes no sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "n horses are the same color" is not the rigorous, precise statement of the inductive hypothesis, which is rather "any subset of the set of horses with cardinality n is such that there exists one color that is the color of every horse in that subset". The induction is on the power set of the set of horses, not the set of horses itself, so ordering within each particular subset is irrelevant, as shown by Michael's reformulation of the inductive step section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

. The numbers are indeed ordered. And the induction step is in fact correct, except when n = 1. The fact that it doesn't work for getting from 1 to 2 is the only flaw in the argument. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't ever seem to understand that our job is emphatically not to parrot what the sources say. There is inherent rephrasing that must occur in this situation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not a simple "rephrasing": this was a fundamental change (on this foundation-level of mathematics). Don't assume people who disagree with you are idiots. You don't seem to understand that theorems are to be stated verbatim, and it is not "parroting the sources", but mathematical precision. Hardy's reformulation changed the fundamental math of the original statement. Staszek Lem (talk)
 * You are blatantly and completely incorrect in both regards. There isn’t even a theorem being proven here!—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The real issues
While I basically agree with D.Lazard and Jasper Deng that the actual mathematical content seems sufficiently sourced and the battle over a missing footnote or supposed OR seems largely misplaced, there are however some more subtle issues with the sources upon a closer inspection.
 * a) A minor but annoying point is that the article gives several books (Polya, Martin and the one containing Cohen's article) without page numbers.
 * b) The article claims the paradox is due to Polya and gives Polya's book as a source. That is actually really problematic case of OR. What is needed here to source the claim is a publication by a third party attributing the the paradox to Polya rather than just giving Polya's "original" publication.
 * c) The content of Polya's publication is actually somewhat misrepresented. Not with regard to the actual mathematical content but the framing. Polya writes about it in his book at page 120 and calls the problem "Are any n numbers equal?" and rephrases it in term of girls and the color of their eyes. There is however no mentioning of horses.

While it is true that some publications attribute the paradox/example to Polya (for instance, ,), I'm right now not really clear whether Polya ever phrased the paradox in terms of horses and their color. In fact i'm not even convinced that it is due to Polya at all. All I know for sure at this point is, that some publications attribute the horse paradox to Polya (without giving Details or references) and that Polya describes the paradox without horses in his book from 1954. So imho we need to formulate the attribution part in the lead more carefully or need to consult additional sources. I didn't have access to Martin or Cohen though may they shed some more light on the issue (I#m skeptical though).

Btw some sources that could be used for the explanation section:, ,

--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I admittedly did overlook the history of this paradox, not being that much of a math historian myself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Using the string "Are any n numbers equal?" I have immediately found Polya's text and update the article accordingly, unlike y'all page owners.

By the way, an someone add an illustration, similar to that of given by Polya. It does help understanding the "proof":

Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A vaguely remember a pop math book from my childhood which picked on Polya's formulation "Any n girls have eyes of the same color": it was pointed out that the base step is already false due to the possibility of  heterochromia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the link to a PDF file of VanDrunen (search for the word "girls" there), but I am not sure whether we can use it in the article due to the unclear copyright status of the pdf there. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The copyright status of the pdf doesn't really matter far as its use as source is concerned. What matters is the reputation of the author and that is is reliably publoshed somewhere. This seems to be case, the author and its book can be found here. Assuming the pdf is not legal it can't of course be linked, but the original publication of which it is a copy can be cited.
 * While this looks like good source for the article and points to Polya's publication as the origin for his description, it does however say anything about the horse story. So we're still more or less stuck with what we've known before. That is, we know what Polya published in 1954, but it is unclear from where the framing in terms of horses originates and it still seems a bit uncertain whether Polya's publication was really the first one on that subject.
 * A graphic illustrating the critical non-empty intersection would imho be helpful.
 * --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This 2003 self-published book says that it is a joke found on the internet. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a 1965 book called "The Worm Re-turns: The Best from the Worm Runner's Digest" meaning there exists an earlier text in a Worm Runner's Digest issue, which is pretty close to Polya's time frame. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting closer: From here: " Pejorative Calculus (Joel Cohen, On The Nature Of Mathematical Proofs, The Worm-Runner's Digest, Vol. III, No.3,  December 1961), where Lemma I (all horses are the same color) is  credited to Professor Lee M. Sonneborn, then at U. of Kansas. " - i.e.,. the very same  Cohen cited in our article. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and it is a hilarious read. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I think we know definitely need a copy of Cohen's original article. If nobody here has access I'm trying to request it via REREQ.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the whole thing (with and without horses) is certainly math folklore for a long time (see also this article from 1986 unfortunately without a specific reference to its origin or Polya). In German speaking countries I've also see also at least dating back to the 80s, interestingly there is is often phrased with cats rather than horses (alluding to the idiom "all cats are grey in the dark"). The according article in the ProofWiki gives additional background on horse thing and cites a source from 1964. I'm not sure how reliable that is though and how much of the content was actually taken from the given source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I was right to distrust the sourcing on Wikiproof. The source from 1964 is accessibke via Google books, it has the basic faulty induction, but nothing on the horses. In fact it proves any n objects are equal.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cohen (1961) beats them all so far. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There is one thing I don't quite get. Was Cohen's article just published in The Worm's Digest and Opus is part of the satire or was the first(?) publication slightly earlier in journal/magazine called Opus.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I only get this in snippet view, but here it is in The Worm Runner's Digest in Google Books: . It was apparently collected in a 1965 book "The Worm Re-turns: The Best from the Worm Runner's Digest". I don't know about the Opus part. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Opus is mentioned here, where a shortened version of On the nature of mathematical prrofs was republished in 1973, it does however not mention the Worm Runner's Digest explicitly for this article. I also saw elsewhere that Cohen had published in Worm's Runner's digest, but a different article. Also Opus was given in the original reference in this WP article (Cohen, Joel E. (1961), "On the nature of mathematical proof", Opus. Reprinted in A Random Walk in Science (R. L. Weber, ed.), Crane, Russak & Co., 1973.). It would be great if somebody could get a copy of the original Worm Runner's digest article (or at least a copy from the compilation book you've linked. Or the publication in Opus if there ever was one (and such a journal or magazine).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement of paradox
I grudgingly may agree that in proofs wuikipedians can be allowed some slack, as long as their reasoning may be verified. However the statement of the paradox must follow the source as close as possible, because the only verification of the formulation of the problem is a published source. One may reword the formulation a bit, but one cannot change it in its essence. The published formulations say "first horse" and "last horse", not "some horse" and "some other horse". Hint for smartasses: in order to work with the latter formulation, one has no invoke the axiom of choice, i.e., one has to prove that "some other horse" exists. Dont say it is trivial: axiom of choice was a shaker for set theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you think that the initial formulation was somehow "imprecise" and you may write up  "a better one", please keep in mind that sometimes paradoxes are intentionally obfuscated to make it more difficult. And if someone finds another solution by picking of the phasing, kudos for them. For example, I remember someone picked on Polya's original formulation with girls by noticing that the statement "one girl has eyes of one color" is wrong. Unfortunately I cannot find the ref now, but this would be a nice addition to the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reference to the axiom of choice here shows you’re not qualified to be assessing the mathematical details of the paradox (we do not need the axiom of choice here: the argument applies for all members of the power set of the set of horses with at least two distinct members simply by definition of cardinality).—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK I suppose flunked the set theory. Still, the replacement text "(not identical to the one first removed)" raises the red flag. What is "identical"? Wikipedia says "Two things are identical if they are the same" . Now, if we make a set of the two things in question, what is the cardinality of the set? Since we are discussing "two things" then the cardinality must be 2, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is not appropriate to force the English language to comply with set theory. Half of all English words don't comply with its rules.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Explanation section
The "Explanation" section refers to "the horses in the middle." However, neither the "Inductive step" nor anywhere in the attempted proof there is any mention of middle.

A concise and clear explanation of the erroneous use of the inductive step is given in [| Mathematical induction, Example of error in the induction step] --UriGeva (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Suggestion: Revise the Explanation section by replacing the existing text with something like the following:
 * The inductive step implicitly assumes that every set of n+1 horses can be split into at least 2 subsets of n horses, such that these two subsets have a nonempty intersection; that is, the intersection of the two sets contains at least 1 horse.
 * The fault with this argument is due to the fact that for n+1 = 2, only 2 subsets are possible and each subset contains a single horse: one subset contains the first horse and the other subset contains the second horse. Therefore, their intersection is empty (having no horses), which contradicts the assumption underlying the inductive step.UriGeva (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The current explanation is actually wrong. It states "The argument above makes the implicit assumption that the set of horses has the size at least 3." Someone may infer that to correct the faulty argument just reset the base case of the induction from 1 to 3. Obviously starting the induction at 3 should also fail. The implicit assumption is more general: As described above, it requires that, given n+1 horses, the intersection subset of every pair of n horses subsets, is not empty. Once n = 2 fails, the case for n = 3 horses is no longer possible. This invalidates the option to start the induction with (set the base case to) n = 3.UriGeva (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

References section
In Reference #5, the link "the original" is broken. It should be updated with the following currently valid URL: https://math.hmc.edu/funfacts/all-horses-are-the-same-color/ UriGeva (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I updated the link.UriGeva (talk) UriGeva (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:All horses are the same color


text:
Pathological jealousy

Pathological jealousy, also known as morbid jealousy, Othello syndrome, or delusional jealousy, is a psychological disorder in which a person is preoccupied with the thought that their spouse or romantic partner is being unfaithful without having any real or legitimate proof, along with socially unacceptable or abnormal behaviour related to these thoughts. The most common cited forms of psychopathology in morbid jealousy are delusions and obsessions. It is considered a subtype of delusional disorder.

Definition
This disorder occurs when a person typically makes repeated accusations that their spouse or sexual partner is being unfaithful, based on insignificant, minimal, or no evidence, often citing seemingly normal or everyday events or material to back up their claims.

Unlike many other delusional disorders, people who suffer from this disorder have a strong association with stalking, cyberstalking, sabotage, or even violence. It can be found in the context of schizophrenia and delusional disorder, such as bipolar disorder, but is also associated with alcoholism and sexual dysfunction, and has been reported after neurological illness (i.e., Parkinson's).

The name "Othello Syndrome" comes from the character in Shakespeare's play Othello, who murders his wife as a result of a false belief that she has been unfaithful. Some psychologists and psychiatrists have asserted that Othello was deceived rather than deluded about Desdemona's alleged infidelity, and thus did not have ‘the Othello Syndrome’.

Psychiatric history

 * Presenting difficulties: neurotic or psychotic jealousy
 * Past psychiatric history: neurotic or psychotic disorders, deliberate self-harm, and attempted suicide
 * Family history: mental illness, including pathological jealousy
 * Relationship history: incorporating both the current and previous relationships, and taking account of the quality of the relationships and the difficulties experienced
 * Forensic history: previous and pending charges and convictions, as well as deviant behavior which was not reported or did not result in a charge or conviction (including aggressive behavior and stalking)
 * Medical history: organic causes which may be responsible for the morbid jealousy (i.e., Parkinson's)

Forms

 * Obsessions: the individual's own thoughts are egodystonic; they are acknowledged to be senseless, and usually resisted. Jealous thoughts are experienced as intrusive and excessive, and compulsive behavior such as checking up on their partner may follow. Egodystonicity (the distress caused by thoughts that are unwanted and viewed as contrary to conscious wishes) generally varies a large amount between patients and “a continuum from obsessional to delusional, which morbid jealousy has been suggested” (Insel & Akiskal 1986).
 * Extreme obsessions: much time is taken up by jealous concerns, and there is a great difficulty in putting the concerns out of the mind. Impairment of the relationship, limitation of the partner's freedom, and checking on the partner's behavior may occur. Although a distinction was occasionally difficult to make, the categories of ‘psychotic’ (delusional) and ‘neurotic’ jealousy contained similar proportions (each between one-third and one-half).
 * Delusions: the individual's own thoughts are egosyntonic; they are regarded as true, and not resisted. Some authors compare morbid jealousy to a delusional state (e.g., Enoch & Trethowan, 1979). Beliefs may include the morbidly jealous subjects' suspicion that: 1. he or she is being poisoned or given some substance(s) to decrease sexual potency by the partner, 2. that the partner has contracted a sexually transmitted disease from a third party 3. that the partner is engaging in sexual intercourse with a third party while the subject sleeps.
 * Overvalued ideas: One symptom may on some instances be viewed as overvaluing an idea, which is defined as “an acceptable, comprehensible idea pursued by the patient beyond the bounds of reason. The idea is not resisted and, although it is not a delusion, the patient characteristically attaches utmost importance to investigating and maintaining the partner’s fidelity at great personal disadvantage and to the distress of the partner”. Overvalued ideas are characterized by being existent in the individual's own thoughts, being egosyntonic; meaning that the ideas project the behaviors, values, and feelings that are aligned with the desires and aims of the individual's ego, or consistent with the individual's ideal self-image, the ideas are also amenable to reason but are not resisted.

Psychological
There are many psychological causes that go along with morbid jealousy. Some people equate morbid jealousy with a delusional state. “Delusions of infidelity exist without any other psychopathology and may be considered to be morbid jealousy in its ‘purest’ form” (Kingham and Gordon). For morbid jealousy to occur one's memories are subconsciously changed, and their partner's actions are misinterpreted as well to the extent that the person is absolutely convinced of betrayal from the partner. It is thought that even some brain disorders might eventually lead to delusions of betrayal. It has also been recorded by Cobb (1979) “that morbid jealousy may be present with all types of cerebral insult or injury.” "It has been suggested that morbid jealousy may potentially arise in response to reduced sexual function”. Cobb (1979) drew attention to the elderly man whose waning sexual powers were insufficient to satisfy a younger wife.

Mullen (1990) considered morbid jealousy to be associated with four features:
 * An underlying mental disorder emerges before or with the jealousy
 * The features of the underlying disorder coexist with the jealousy
 * The course of morbid jealousy closely relates to that of the underlying disorder
 * The jealousy has no basis in reality

Personality
People who are very insecure, or even fearful, are more likely to become anxious, or question their partner's commitment to them. “Insecure attachment style correlates strongly with borderline personality disorder” (Kingham and Gordon).

Environmental
Some people even believe that someone who is morbidly jealous might suspect that he or she is being drugged or given some kind of substance that might decrease their sexual potency, or they might even be under the impression that their significant other has somehow received a sexually transmitted disease from another person while the subject is unaware.

Epidemiology
There is no known prevalence of morbid jealousy; currently there is no community survey tracking its existence in individuals. As of 1979, it was considered to be a rare occurrence. Still, many counselors encounter cases of morbid jealousy. Some clinicians may not at first be able to treat this condition due to other dominating psychopathologies present within the jealous person that call for priority attention.

Men and women differ dramatically when it comes to morbid jealousy. Men who suffer from morbid jealousy are more likely than women to use violence, and also are more likely to harm or kill with their hands rather than a blunt object. Women on the other hand, when using violence, tend to use a blunt object or knife. Men focus on the rival's status and resources when it comes to the threat of jealousy they fear. Women tend to become more jealous of a potential threat on their rival's youth and physical attractiveness.

Triggers
For men the strongest trigger is sexual infidelity, and with women the strongest trigger is emotional infidelity. If partner-related violence does not stop infidelity from happening, the male mate will sometimes resort to suicide instead. The final resort to stopping infidelity inside of morbid jealousy is to commit partner murder. Women are much less likely to kill their partner, unless it is in self-defense. Morbid jealousy can occur in a number of conditions such as chronic alcoholism, addiction to substances other than alcohol (i.e., cocaine, amphetamines), organic brain disorders (i.e., Parkinson's, Huntington's), schizophrenia, neurosis, affective disturbances, or personality disorders.

Associated drug and alcohol use
Alcohol and drug misuse has a well-recognized association with morbid jealousy. “In two studies, morbid jealousy was present in 27% and 34% respectively of men recruited from alcohol treatment services” (Shrestha et al., 1985; Michael et al., 1995). Amphetamine and cocaine increase the possibility of a delusion of infidelity that can continue after intoxication stops. (Shepherd, 1961).

Assessment
In an attempt to counsel or treat the morbid jealousy of an individual, proper and thorough assessment must be employed. This approach is broad in nature, but necessary so as to provide adequate information that will aid in the possible reparation of a dynamic containing a morbidly jealous person. To begin, a careful history should be taken of both partners if possible; separate and together. It is imperative that a full and detailed psychiatric history and mental state examination be recorded for the jealous partner; doing so may enable one to distinguish whether the jealousy is obsessional or delusional in nature. It is also possible that the jealousy may be the result of a thought that has been given too much importance. Considering that jealousy is a very delicate issue, any reference made to it should be approached carefully and with tact. It must be kept in mind that the jealous individual may be displacing blame for their issues onto their partner and their alleged infidelity as opposed to their own behavior. If there is any history of relevant or related mental illness and substance misuse it should be noted as it may possibly be a contributing or aiding factor. In order to get the best grasp on the issues and begin positive progression, multiple interviews should be held to assess the marital relationship.

After completing the assessment, it is best to deliver information about risk with both individuals in the relationship. Due to confidentiality, the patient should give consent for this information to be shared unless there is a risk to another individual and it is serious and immediate. This is the only case in which confidentiality is invalid. The professional should ensure that all necessary steps are taken to guarantee the safety of a potential victim, keeping in mind that it is possible that authorities may have to be alerted regarding the matter. If the professional has reason to believe that there is a high risk of harm to themselves or another person, the individual who is morbidly jealous should be admitted to a hospital as soon as possible to prevent any negative outcomes for any parties involved.

Management
Morbid jealousy encompasses various psychiatric states and the best way to approach treatment depends on the symptoms that are observed in the individual. Therefore, prognosis and outcomes vary from person to person and depends on the situation and the complexities of the interpersonal relationships being observed. Also, other issues that may exacerbate the negative aspects of the environment created by jealous behavior need to be addressed in order to begin reparations. For example, if alcoholism plays a role in the behavior of the morbidly jealous individual, treatment of their addiction can positively affect their progress in trying to change their jealous nature. While psychotherapy can be an effective method of treating morbidly jealous persons, it is not sufficient when the nature of their illness is more serious. It is not possible to say that there is one form of treatment that is superior over all those that are currently available. Even though this may be true, cognitive behavioral therapy is the treatment that has proven to be most effective.

Medical Psychological Social
 * Treatment of the primary psychiatric condition
 * Antipsychotic medication
 * Antidepressant medication
 * Psycho education for the affected person and the partner
 * Behavioral therapy
 * Cognitive therapy
 * Individual psychotherapy
 * Insight-riented psychotherapies
 * Family therapy
 * Couple therapy
 * Geographical separation of the partners
 * Social work involvement for child protection issues
 * Alcohol and substance misuse treatment

Confirmatory behaviors
When suspicions of the partner's fidelity arise, they quickly become all that is thought about. Certain behaviors, such as interrogation of the partner, repeated telephone calls to work and surprise visits, stalking behavior, setting up recording devices in the home or work, or hiring a private detective to follow the partner, are all common in trying to determine if there is truly infidelity or if it is just perceived. Individuals who are jealous may take drastic measures, such as searching the partner's clothing and belongings, looking through diaries and other communication methods (email, text messaging), or examining bed sheets, undergarments, and even genitalia for evidence of sexual activity.

Harm to self
Suicidal thoughts are common in morbid jealousy, especially because of its association with depression and substance abuse.

Risk to others
Violence can occur in any relationship tainted with jealousy, either normal or morbid jealousy. In a study of jealousy by Mullen & Martin in 1994, 15% of both men and women reported that at some time they had been “subjected to physical violence at the hands of a jealous partner.” Culturally, jealousy may be even used to “justify violence towards partners.” Victims in a homicide case are most likely to be current or ex-partners in both female and male perpetrators. When a partner repeatedly denies infidelity, this may provoke anger and extreme violence. On the other hand, the partner that is suffering may give up and give a false confession, which in turn most likely will provoke rage in the jealous individual. In the U.S. a sample was taken of 20 participants with delusional jealousy. 19 were male and the researchers found that 12 had threatened to kill their spouse because of their perceived infidelity. Of the 12 males, all actually attacked their spouse. Out of the 20, a weapon was used by three of them, and 12 had harmed their spouse. The one female participant also attacked her spouse. A presence of paranoid delusions and hallucinations of injury to the spouse were most often associated with violence. This suggests that individuals who suffer from delusional jealousy who partake in violence may be solely driven by psychotic phenomena. A higher risk of assault was associated with alcohol consumption.

Risk to children
Children who live in a household with a parent who suffers from morbid jealousy may suffer emotional and/or physical abuse as a direct result of the actions made by the parent. Children may also accidentally overhear arguments or witness physical violence between their parents. They could even be potentially accidentally injured during assaults. The morbidly jealous parent may employ a child or more than one to spy on the other parent. It is not out of the question for a child to witness a homicide or suicide where their parent is the victim.

title: Pathological jealousy


text: User talk:69.19.26.114

title: User talk:69.19.26.114