Editing Abstraction (section)

===Simplification and ordering===
Abstraction uses a [[strategy]] of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective [[communication]] about things in the abstract requires an [[intuition (knowledge)|intuitive]] or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.
[[File:Conceptual graph for A Cat sitting on the Mat Hi-res.png|alt=|thumb|[[Conceptual graph]] for A Cat sitting on the Mat ''(graph 1)'']]
[[File:JerryFelix.JPG|thumb|Cat on Mat ''(picture 1)'']]
For example, many different things can be [[red]]. Likewise, many things sit on surfaces (as in ''picture 1'', to the right). The property of ''[[red]]ness'' and the [[Relation of Ideas|relation]] ''[[sitting|sitting-on]]'' are therefore abstractions of those objects. Specifically, the conceptual diagram ''graph 1'' identifies only three boxes, two ellipses, and four arrows (and their five labels), whereas the ''picture 1'' shows much more pictorial detail, with the scores of implied relationships as implicit in the picture rather than with the nine explicit details in the graph.

''Graph 1'' details some explicit relationships between the objects of the diagram. For example, the arrow between the ''agent'' and ''CAT:Elsie'' depicts an example of an ''[[is-a]]'' relationship, as does the arrow between the ''location'' and the ''MAT''. The arrows between the [[gerund]]/[[present participle]] ''SITTING'' and the [[noun]]s ''agent'' and ''location'' express the [[diagram]]'s basic relationship; ''"agent is SITTING on location"''; ''Elsie'' is an instance of ''CAT''.<ref>[[John F. Sowa|Sowa, John F.]] (1984). ''Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine''. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. {{ISBN|978-0-201-14472-7}}.</ref>

Although the description ''sitting-on'' (graph 1) is more abstract than the graphic image of a cat sitting on a mat (picture 1), the delineation of abstract things from concrete things is somewhat ambiguous; this ambiguity or vagueness is characteristic of abstraction. Thus something as simple as a newspaper might be specified to six levels, as in [[Douglas Hofstadter]]'s illustration of that ambiguity, with a progression from abstract to concrete in ''[[Gödel, Escher, Bach]]'' (1979):<ref>{{cite book|author-link = Douglas Hofstadter|first = Douglas|last = Hofstadter|date = 1979|title = [[Gödel, Escher, Bach]]|publisher= Basic Books|isbn = 978-0-465-02656-2}}</ref>
{{blockquote|
:(1) a publication
::(2) a newspaper
:::(3) ''The San Francisco Chronicle''
::::(4) the May 18 edition of ''The San Francisco Chronicle''
:::::(5) my copy of the May 18 edition of ''The San Francisco Chronicle''
::::::(6) my copy of the May 18 edition of ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' as it was when I first picked it up (as contrasted with my copy as it was a few days later: in my fireplace, burning)
}}

An abstraction can thus encapsulate each of these levels of detail with no [[loss of generality]]. But perhaps a detective or philosopher/scientist/engineer might seek to learn about something, at progressively deeper levels of detail, to solve a crime or a puzzle.