Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Systems (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
WikiProject Philosophy / Logic / Analytic (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Additional information:
Taskforce icon
Taskforce icon
Analytic philosophy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Callen95.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This stub article was spun off from a disambiguation page originally at this location, now located at analysis (disambiguation).--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article inconsistently uses the American and British spellings of "analyze/analyse". Is wikipedia policy not to use the British spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is this?[edit]

following pasted from the section "other" on the Analysis main page.
"Another form, is that of depth. To read and understand so much so that it can only comprehended by one who can put two and two together. Hard to find, you say? Well, then, I suggest that you analyze more than just this, my friend. Find what it means to you, determine how it reflects upon the world that surrounds you. Then, tell me you don't understand what it is to analyze."
Is there any meaning to this section? If not, it should be deleted. If there is, it needs serious clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit has been removed, and notification posted to IP address's talk page. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reservations about the sentence

Mathematical analysis can be applied in the study of classical concepts of real numbers, such as the complex variables, trigonometric functions, and algorithms, or of non-classical concepts like constructivism, harmonics, infinity, and vectors.

I think the sentence could read something like

The method of mathematical analysis can be applied in the classical study of real numbers, complex variables, functions, and algorithms, and in the modern study of concepts like constructivism, harmonics, infinity, and vectors.

I may edit this sentence if there's no objection.

I may also insert some comments (here or elsewhere) comparing the analytical approach with the synthetic approach (taken, for example in abstract algebra). I think mathematical investigation is a back-and-forth between these two approaches. For example, at the end of his "analysis", Dedekind synthesizes the reals from the rationals (and ultimately set theory). On the other hand the synthetic construction of group theory is brought about by analyzing groups using local information about subgroups. Any thoughts?Aliotra (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good to me. Be bold!--Father Goose (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

history merge[edit]

The following entries in the history were in the redirect that was at this title, keep this in mind when interpreting diffs

  • 20:17, 9 January 2008 (diff) . . R'n'B (Talk | contribs | block) (54 bytes) (db-movedab for malplaced disambiguation page)
  • 05:39, 30 November 2007 (diff) . . East718 (Talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (afd)
  • 16:28, 24 November 2007 (diff) . . SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) (925 bytes) (Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes using AWB)
  • 01:04, 24 November 2007 (diff) . . Nousernamesleft (Talk | contribs | block) (904 bytes) (afd)
  • 15:23, 19 November 2007 (diff) . . Jeodesic (Talk | contribs | block) (591 bytes) (Stub sort)
  • 20:05, 18 November 2007 (diff) . . Father Goose (Talk | contribs | block) (583 bytes) (separated into stub article (this) and disambig page)
  • 20:01, 18 November 2007 (diff) . . Father Goose (Talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (moved Analysis to Analysis (disambiguation) over redirect: going to split this into an article (analysis) and this disambig page)

Random832 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Form of the article[edit]

I would recommend that this article take a more textual approach, explaining why analysis is important in a wide range of fields and how it is used in each. It seems particularly unsatisfying to me to subsist with two articles that might as well be called List of articles that include the word analysis and List of articles that include the word analytic or analytical. I like to sort things more than most folks, but the analysis article could be so much more than it is at the moment. There are many forms of analysis that belong in this article that don't have the word analysis, analytic, or analytical in them: game theory, heuristics, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning? What about simulation, scientific modelling, brainstorming, mindmap, Red Team, negotiation theory, timeline studies, intelligence, problem solving, and on and on. I'm willing to help on fixing it over the long term, if others are interested in going in that direction with this article. I can contribute on the qualitative side of things, but I lack background to do much good on the quantitative, math and hard sciences side. --Pat (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You better believe I endorse that suggestion. I tried to get that started a few months ago by splitting it into a stub article and the current disambiguation page, but a spasm of myopia interceded. Wikipedia should unmistakably have an actual article on the general subject of "analysis", and I will support your efforts in any way I can.--Father Goose (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is thesis writing time for me through end of April, but I'll add what I can til then and begin work in earnest over the summer. I'll try talking it up at grad school to see if I can enlist recruits, but we're all unfortunately in the same boat. Maybe the first years? I'm glad you agree. --Pat (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a sample workup using the Chemistry section. How does that look? I used the see also feature, then drew in other ideas. I'm not a chemist, so that section can be reworked if I got it wrong. But the concept of text instead of list is the main point. --Pat (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an excellent way to approach it. I changed the section headings a bit to get away from the "disambiguation" format style. I'll do some copyediting later and maybe convert a section or two myself. Thanks for getting the work underway.--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As requested, I changed the Chemistry section to account for the three major parts of Analytical Chemistry Laburke (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is now not even english: "As a formal concept, the method has variously been ascribed to Ibn al-Haytham,[1] Descartes (Discourse on the Method), Galileo, and Isaac Newton, as a practical method of physical discovery." Should read: "As a formal concept, the method has variously been ascribed to Ibn al-Haytham,[1] Descartes (Discourse on the Method) and Galileo. It has also been ascribed to Isaac Newton, but only as a practical method of physical discovery (which he did not name or formally describe.)" I believe someone with lamentably low language skills edited out the original meaning and left us with an impossible grammatical construction to boot. So I've added in some tedious disambiguation to try to foolproof the sentence from futher "improvement" at the cost of time and ease of reading - but I can't make this change so could someone else do so please? Ndaniels (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone removed the Chemistry section completely and added what looked like an ad for an organization. I restored the Chemistry section and did some work on the Literature and Mathematics sections. --Pat (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i nead help with my project and this is not helping. my teacher asked if i could do an anlysis of how my project affects Canadians and the world. p.s Twilight rocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What cannot be analyzed?[edit]

This aritcle would find more use if a section for the coditions that are to be fulfilled are addressed. I have added a line under heading identity - The one without the identities which are common to all cannot be analyzed. I suggest the authors of this article to add a section on - what cannot be analyzed.

Misuse of sources[edit]

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. I searched the page history, and found one edit by Jagged 85 in February 2008 and 2 more edits in March 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just as a notion for some more persistent contributor for possible consideration: currently prominently presented sentence "It has also been ascribed to Isaac Newton, in the form of a practical method of physical discovery (which he did not name or formally describe)." is not entirely and irrevocably true. As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. Third book of "Opticks", p. 380 (1718 edition) In my humble opinion, this actually counts as both naming and describing (although this matter can definitely be disputed). --Oop (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hans Niels Jahangir - Hans Niels Jahnke[edit]

Who is Hans Niels Jahnke? He wrote a book on mathematical analysis, so his definition of the word is only from a mathematical (i.e. the analysis of mathematical functions and their derivatives) point of view. The word analysis itself has a much broader meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just removed the quotation, for the reason you gave. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with disambiguation page?[edit]

Currently, the page is essentially a list of topics with "analysis" in their name, with links to them and brief descriptions—and no topic of its own. The lead suggests that there is a distinct topic of "analysis", but the body doesn't describe it. There appears to be no primary topic to describe. The actual Analysis (disambiguation) page lists only a few topics. Is there any reason to keep this a separate page from Analysis (disambiguation)? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

british english[edit]

this page wasn't written in british english, a user changed it unilaterally for some reason.