Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.
I’m lost as to why you are citing this.
This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.
Nobody throughout this thread is using specific jargon from the field of statistical physics.
We’re simply discussing what the word “wet” means. I am not interested in your niche scientific subchapter on “wetting” in a 1951 theoretical physics textbook.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
What that wikipedia article is explaining is that if you are interested in the meaning of a word and not just factual information about it, an encyclopedia (wikipedia) entry is the wrong place to look because “unlike a dictionary”, it’s not focused on the meaning of words.
What? I legit don’t understand what you’re trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that’s the be-all, end-all of definitions.
Uh, you linked it. Thats your source. I just used it because you linked it as a source you trust?
You accidentally linked “wetting”, but if you look at link you sent and go to the top of the page where it says
For other uses of ‘Wet’, see Wet (disambiguation)
And then click that and you’ll see
Look up wet, wetness, or wetting in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
It’s literally just 2 clicks inside the source you linked as the end-all, be-all lmao.
You’re right, I wouldn’t have just linked a dictionary entry as a thought ending cliche until you tried to and I showed you what your own source was saying about it.
I have no actual stake in this discussion beyond the fun of arguing. I could continue, for example by pointing out that in the article about “Encyclopedia” you linked it says
There are some broad differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries. Most noticeably, encyclopedia articles are longer, fuller and more thorough than entries in most general-purpose dictionaries.[3][20] There are differences in content as well. Generally speaking, dictionaries provide linguistic information about words themselves, while encyclopedias focus more on the things for which those words stand.[6][7][8][9]
But I get the feeling you’re taking this too seriously, and I’m not enjoying this anymore. So let’s end it here, I hope you have a good day!
I’m lost as to why you are citing this.
Nobody throughout this thread is using specific jargon from the field of statistical physics.
We’re simply discussing what the word “wet” means. I am not interested in your niche scientific subchapter on “wetting” in a 1951 theoretical physics textbook.
What that wikipedia article is explaining is that if you are interested in the meaning of a word and not just factual information about it, an encyclopedia (wikipedia) entry is the wrong place to look because “unlike a dictionary”, it’s not focused on the meaning of words.
Uh, you linked it. Thats your source. I just used it because you linked it as a source you trust?
You accidentally linked “wetting”, but if you look at link you sent and go to the top of the page where it says
And then click that and you’ll see
It’s literally just 2 clicks inside the source you linked as the end-all, be-all lmao.
You’re right, I wouldn’t have just linked a dictionary entry as a thought ending cliche until you tried to and I showed you what your own source was saying about it.
I have no actual stake in this discussion beyond the fun of arguing. I could continue, for example by pointing out that in the article about “Encyclopedia” you linked it says
But I get the feeling you’re taking this too seriously, and I’m not enjoying this anymore. So let’s end it here, I hope you have a good day!