Edit: The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)

Jump to navigation Jump to search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, editor.


Warning: This page already exists, but it does not use this form.

Question Answered:

What question does this theory attempt to answer?

Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)
Theory Type:

Depending on whatkind of a question this theory is attempting to answer, it can be normative, descriptive, or a definition.

Descriptive
Subject:

An answer can be construed as an RDF triple that semantically links a subject, a predicate, and an object. The subject of an answer is given by its question.

The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)
Predicate:

The predicate of an answer is given by its question.

is tautological
Title Formula:

The title will be constructed according to the following formula defined by the question.

The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is <Object>
Also Known As:

Optional. If the formulation has alternate names, please indicate them here. For instance, The First Law is also known as The Law of Scientific Inertia.

Object:

The formulation text will be constructed according to the following formula: "The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is <object>.". Please, indicate the object of the answer.

Not Tautological
Author(s):

Who are the authors of this formulation? If the author is not in the list, please first add the author in Author category.

Hakob Barseghyan, Nicholas Overgaard and Paul Patton
Year of Formulation:

When was this theory first formulated?

2017
Formulation File:

Often formulations need to appear in a standard box with a title and text. Select or upload the image for this formulation.

Upload file
Description:

Provide a detailed description of this theory here. NOTE: The first paragraph of this description will also appear on any other page that cites this theory, so please ensure that the first paragraph contains a succinct exposition of the theory.

Source:

Where was this theory first formulated?

Broader History:

Optional. Use only if this formulation somehow owes to discussions outside of the scientonomic tradition. Otherwise leave empty.

Scientonomic History:

Optional. Use only if this formulation is strongly related to previous scientonomic formulations. NOTE: Do not list what theories this theory came to replace as that will be done automatically by the encyclopedia.

YouTube Video

Example

Acceptance Record

Cancel