In philosophy, it is important to distinguish between two senses of identity, qualitative identity and numerical identity. Arbitrary objects ''a'' and ''b'' can be said to be qualitatively identical if ''a'' and ''b'' are duplicates, that is, if ''a'' and ''b'' are exactly similar in all respects, that is, if ''a'' and ''b'' have all qualitative properties in common. Examples of this might be two wine glasses made in the same wine glass factory on the same production line (at least, for a relaxed standard of exact similarity), or a carbon atom in one's left hand and a carbon atom in one's right shoulder (perhaps true even for the most strict standard of exact similarity). ''a'' and ''b'' can be said to be numerically identical if ''a'' and ''b'' are one and the same thing, that is, if ''a'' just is ''b'', that is, if there is only one thing variously called 'a' and 'b'. For example, Clark Kent is numerically identical with Superman in the sense that there is only one person (who happens to wear different clothes at different times). ==Logic== In logic, the identity relation is normally, (by definition), the transitive relation, symmetric relation, and reflexive relation binary relation that holds ''only'' between a thing and itself. That is, identity is the two-place predicate, "=", such that for all ''x'', ''y'', "''x'' = ''y''" is true iff ''x'' is ''y''. More usefully, it can be expressed formally in second-order logic or in set theory: For all objects ''x'', ''y'', if for all properties ''F'', ''Fx'' iff ''Fy'', then ''x'' = ''y''. It is an axiom of most normal modal logics that for all ''x'', if ''x'' = ''x'' then necessarily ''x'' = ''x''. (These definitions are of course inapplicable in some area of quantified logic, such as fuzzy logic and fuzzy set theory, and with respect to vague objects.) ==Metaphysics== Metaphysicians, and sometimes philosophers of language and mind, ask other questions: * What does it mean for an object to be the same as itself? * If x and y are identical (are the same thing), must they always be identical? Are they ''necessarily'' identical? * What does it mean for an object to be the same, if it changes over time? (Is apple''t'' the same as apple''t''+1?) * If an object's parts are entirely replaced over time, as in the Ship of Theseus example, in what way is it the same? A traditional view is that of Gottfried Leibniz, who held that ''x'' is the same as ''y'' if and only if every predicate true of ''x'' is true of ''y'' as well. Leibniz's ideas have taken root in the philosophy of mathematics, where they have influenced the development of the predicate calculus as Leibniz's law. Mathematicians sometimes distinguish identity from equality (mathematics). More mundanely, an ''identity'' in mathematics may be an ''equation'' that holds true for all values of a variable. More recent metaphysicians have discussed trans-world identity -- the notion that there can be the same object in different possible worlds. == Computer programming == In object-oriented programming, identity (object-oriented programming) is a mechanism for distinguishing different objects from each other. This is based on the philosophical concept of identity, but applied to data structures. In programs, one frequently may have several variables (or pointers) which refer to the same underlying data structure. An identity predicate allows one to ask whether two variables refer to the same thing. In many languages, identity can be determined more efficiently than equality (mathematics) since the former involves simply a pointer comparison while the latter must traverse data structures. == Digital identity == (See also Digital identity main page). The identity of a person, group, thing, process or any other entity is often expressed through a digital identifier within a certain context. For example, a Social Security Number is a digital identifier that identifies a person within the context of the US social security administration and the internal revenue service. A library-assigned accession number is a digital identifier for a particular book within the context of the library that owns the book. Contrast with an analog identifier, such as a fingerprint. Recently, various efforts have started to define universal digital identifiers, i.e. digital identifiers whose context is global. URLs are an example of universal digital identifiers for web pages. A digital identifier is often used jointly with one or more credentials that make (credible) assertions about an entity and a digital identifier claimed by the entity. For example, a credit card number is a digital identifier which is often used in connection with a credit card slip and the actual credit card (both are credentials) in order to prevent or reduce financial fraud. == Cultural identity == Cultural identity is the (feeling of) identity of a group or culture, or of an individual as far as she/he is influenced by her/his belonging to a group or culture. Common habits, characteristics, ideas may be clear markers of a shared cultural identity, but essentially it is determined by difference: we feel we belong to a group, and a group defines itself as a group, by noticing and highlighting differences with other groups and cultures. ==Personal identity== :See also recognition of human individuals, personal identity. People have different Human physical appearances notably the sexual gender, shape of the face, skin pigmentation, height, and color of hair. The choice of clothing and bodily adornments vary. Sounds can be used for identification: the voice, language, timber, vocabulary, physical movements. Personal identity may be proved by an identity document. Animal identity may be proved via a microchip (animal identification). == External links == * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/ Identity] **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/ Identity over time] **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ Personal identity] **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-relative/ Relative identity]
OK, this needs to be split up. Any ideas for useful page titles? --User:Fubar Obfusco 23:01 14 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---- I'm curious what the point of this paragraph is: :Two objects can be called identical, meaning that they have the same shape, size and other properties. Thus, when we interchange the two objects, we do not see any difference. However, in terms of a stricter sense of identity, the initial and final situation are different. By observing not just the initial and final situation but the move itself, we can know this. Whatever it is, I think it would be expressed more clearly in something like this: :We sometimes say two things are identical iff they have every property ''except spatial location'' in common. This we can say "this box is identical to that one." At other times, though, we say two things are identical iff they have ''absolutely every'' property in common. If we take "identity" in this sense, it's impossible to point to two identical boxes. Would this be a reasonable replacement, or would the replacement result in missing some more profound point? Maybe something more profound would arise, for example, if we considered non-spatial things -- because non-spatial things don't have the constraint that "they can't be in the same place at the same time". --User:Ryguasu 12:48, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) :I think the notion of identity in metaphysics goes deeper than that. Identity is an object's relation ''to itself'', not merely to objects that resemble it strongly. It doesn't really make sense to say that "''two objects'' are identical if ...", because if ''x'' and ''y'' are identical, then they are not two objects; they are two names for one object. ::You mean, presumably, that "they" are a single object with two names (Be clear: are x and y the things or the names?) :What we are asking, it seems to me, is not "Are two objects interchangeable if ... ?" but rather "What is that relationship, which ''x'' has to itself, that it does not have to any object ''other'' than itself?" Or, put another way, "Given two names or descriptions ''x'' and ''y'', by what means can we discern if they in fact name the same object?" :If you are familiar with the Lisp programming language, you might consider the difference between the predicates EQ and EQUAL. (EQUAL X Y) returns truth if the variables X and Y refer to data objects that are equivalent -- roughly, if you print them both out, they will look the same. (EQ X Y), however, returns truth only if X and Y are two names for the same data object in memory. --User:Fubar Obfusco 14:27, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ---- I would like to take Ryguasu's proposal one step further: a definition of identity should not refer to any particular property, not even spatial location: after all, we may wonder if two things we see in the same spot, but at different times, are the same. So my phrasing would be something like: :The identity of an object is its being a particular member of a given set, rather than some other member. Put in terms of traditional theory on semantics, it is the reference of a description (a predicate). For example, a description could be ''the owner of the bike with a broken saddle who was here yesterday''; it refers to a particular person; this relationship between this description and the person we call the identity of that person. (It's a property of a ''term'' within this description, not a property of the person himself!) ::This is much too confusing. Why bring in sets at all? Surely the first sentence would be better expressed by "...it's being a particular object and not any other object". That way one also doesn't raise the specter of things tat can't belong to sets, such as (arguably) properties, "proper classes" (or, as Quine called them, "ultimate classes", and vague objects, all of which haev been discussed extensively by philosophers and logicians in relation to identity. Descriptions and predicates are not quite the same. (The description you offer is not a predicate; if it began with the word ''is'', it would be one.) And not all objects are referred to by descriptions, or at all. (First, there is the issue of substitutional versus ontic quantification. Second, there is the difference between names and descriptions.) And no, despite some careless remarks by Frege, it is generally agreed by logicians that identity is ''not'' a relation between terms, but between objects. (What you are thinking of is the fact that identity statements are ''informative'' only when expressed using two different referring expressions.) :Identity is a controversial issue in computer programming, mathematical logic, and particularly in their meeting ground, database theory. Traditional logic, and relational database theory, describes things in terms of their observable properties and relationships: reference and identity do not exist between elements of a description, but are links between the description and the world it applies to. In terms of the description, objects cannot be compared other than by comparing their observable properties. Programming languages, however, are full of references (pointers), and the issue is whether such a thing should be allowed in conceptual descriptions of the world - such as relational databases. Does it make sense to be able to state that a person's parent is identical to some other person's parent, or should we fundamentally state this relationship in terms of observable properties that we hold in the database, and by which parents can be identified? A system that supports the former is said to support object identity. User:Rp 22 Nov 2003 Identity has a sense in which things share An Identiy, i.e. "black", or two " black and four footed", or more "black four footed and called 'puss' ". In another sense it's scope includes cultural and phyiological filters or precepts. It is cumulative, quantitative and qualitative, it accretes, like datae or quantae. This is proximately related to categories and "forms". Taken as such we can look on socrates idea of "joints" rather clearly. Thus the aforementioned "ambiguity" is really the ambiguity of "grey" in that it can be more grey or less, more ore less identical. It is a primitive term to some philosophical systems. An identity may subsume a name, names associate with other names, systems are built. Some of the 'identiy' concepts are found in group theory, in some things it is identical but it is different in others. Thus the concepts of Definition or 'naming' by shared and/or excluded traits. An identity/name may refer to a braod category or small. As names are added the category narrows till an idividual is represented, that is a thing is represented which by it's exclusions can only represent one thing; holding, by convention , some terms as absent ( eg time, for an a individual man). comments please.wblakesx ---- I moved the following paragraph from metaphysics to here (it was already discussed above as, well, at least questionable): ''Two objects can be called identical, meaning that they have the same shape, size and other properties. Thus, when we interchange the two objects, we do not see any difference. However, in terms of a stricter sense of identity, the initial and final situation are different. By observing not just the initial and final situation but the move itself, we can know this.'' Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - so in the paragraph "Metaphysics" in the article "Identity" it should describe, what identity means in metaphysics - and there, the above paragraph makes no sense. If two descriptions of objects share all properties - well, then that's it, it's the same object they refer two. --User:Denny 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- What about the most common use of the word identity, as in one's identification or proof of identity?User:Pedant : see Identity document. But you're right, there should be a link - I added the link to the Identity (disambiguation). --User:Denny 11:47, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Identity policy at Wikipedia is poorly defined. Fights frequently break out over how Wikipedia should refer to various "identities", particularly ethnic and political groups. Many of these continue to simmer on, drawing down on our meagre resources. It takes much more time to deal with a conflict than to work on articles wiouth such a distraction. Various attempts have been made to apply the NPOV to problems of identity. In some cases, this has resulted in stability, but in far too many cases there is a "consensus" based on polling - and yet these tend to be fragile coalitions and are frequently ignored. ==Examples of attempts to settle identity disputes== *Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Identity:
Identity
Identity
Identity
IdentityAndChange
Identity_(book)
Identity_(disambiguation)
Identity_(mathematics)
Identity_(mathematics)
Identity_(movie)
Identity_(music)
Identity_(music)
Identity_(object-oriented_programming)
Identity_(social_science)
Identity_and_change
Identity_based_encryption
Identity_based_encryption
Identity_by_descent
Identity_by_type
Identity_Card
Identity_card
Identity_card
Identity_Cards
Identity_cards
Identity_Cards_Act
Identity_Cards_Act_2005
Identity_Cards_Bill
Identity_Cards_Bill_2005
Identity_Card_Act
Identity_Card_Act_2005
Identity_Card_Bill
Identity_Card_Bill_2005
Identity_Card_Bil_2005l
Identity_certificate
Identity_cleansing
Identity_Commons
Identity_component
Identity_creation
Identity_Crisis
Identity_crisis
Identity_Crisis_(2004_DC_miniseries)
Identity_Crisis_(2004_DC_miniseries)
Identity_Crisis_(album)
Identity_Crisis_(comics)
Identity_Crisis_(comics)
Identity_crisis_(psychology)
Identity_deception
Identity_dispute
Identity_dispute
Identity_document
Identity_document
Identity_documents_in_the_United_States
Identity_document_forgery
Identity_document_forgery
Identity_element
Identity_function
Identity_function
Identity_management
Identity_management
Identity_management_systems
Identity_map
Identity_mapping
Identity_matrix
Identity_morphism
Identity_of_indiscernibles
Identity_Politics
Identity_politics
Identity_politics
Identity_Property_of_Addition
Identity_theft
Identity_theft
Identity_theory_of_mind
Identity_thieves
Identity_verification
Identity
In philosophy, it is important to distinguish between two senses of identity, qualitative identity and numerical identity. Arbitrary objects ''a'' and ''b'' can be said to be qualitatively identical if ''a'' and ''b'' are duplicates, that is, if ''a'' and ''b'' are exactly similar in all respects, that is, if ''a'' and ''b'' have all qualitative properties in common. Examples of this might be two wine glasses made in the same wine glass factory on the same production line (at least, for a relaxed standard of exact similarity), or a carbon atom in one's left hand and a carbon atom in one's right shoulder (perhaps true even for the most strict standard of exact similarity). ''a'' and ''b'' can be said to be numerically identical if ''a'' and ''b'' are one and the same thing, that is, if ''a'' just is ''b'', that is, if there is only one thing variously called 'a' and 'b'. For example, Clark Kent is numerically identical with Superman in the sense that there is only one person (who happens to wear different clothes at different times). ==Logic== In logic, the identity relation is normally, (by definition), the transitive relation, symmetric relation, and reflexive relation binary relation that holds ''only'' between a thing and itself. That is, identity is the two-place predicate, "=", such that for all ''x'', ''y'', "''x'' = ''y''" is true iff ''x'' is ''y''. More usefully, it can be expressed formally in second-order logic or in set theory: For all objects ''x'', ''y'', if for all properties ''F'', ''Fx'' iff ''Fy'', then ''x'' = ''y''. It is an axiom of most normal modal logics that for all ''x'', if ''x'' = ''x'' then necessarily ''x'' = ''x''. (These definitions are of course inapplicable in some area of quantified logic, such as fuzzy logic and fuzzy set theory, and with respect to vague objects.) ==Metaphysics== Metaphysicians, and sometimes philosophers of language and mind, ask other questions: * What does it mean for an object to be the same as itself? * If x and y are identical (are the same thing), must they always be identical? Are they ''necessarily'' identical? * What does it mean for an object to be the same, if it changes over time? (Is apple''t'' the same as apple''t''+1?) * If an object's parts are entirely replaced over time, as in the Ship of Theseus example, in what way is it the same? A traditional view is that of Gottfried Leibniz, who held that ''x'' is the same as ''y'' if and only if every predicate true of ''x'' is true of ''y'' as well. Leibniz's ideas have taken root in the philosophy of mathematics, where they have influenced the development of the predicate calculus as Leibniz's law. Mathematicians sometimes distinguish identity from equality (mathematics). More mundanely, an ''identity'' in mathematics may be an ''equation'' that holds true for all values of a variable. More recent metaphysicians have discussed trans-world identity -- the notion that there can be the same object in different possible worlds. == Computer programming == In object-oriented programming, identity (object-oriented programming) is a mechanism for distinguishing different objects from each other. This is based on the philosophical concept of identity, but applied to data structures. In programs, one frequently may have several variables (or pointers) which refer to the same underlying data structure. An identity predicate allows one to ask whether two variables refer to the same thing. In many languages, identity can be determined more efficiently than equality (mathematics) since the former involves simply a pointer comparison while the latter must traverse data structures. == Digital identity == (See also Digital identity main page). The identity of a person, group, thing, process or any other entity is often expressed through a digital identifier within a certain context. For example, a Social Security Number is a digital identifier that identifies a person within the context of the US social security administration and the internal revenue service. A library-assigned accession number is a digital identifier for a particular book within the context of the library that owns the book. Contrast with an analog identifier, such as a fingerprint. Recently, various efforts have started to define universal digital identifiers, i.e. digital identifiers whose context is global. URLs are an example of universal digital identifiers for web pages. A digital identifier is often used jointly with one or more credentials that make (credible) assertions about an entity and a digital identifier claimed by the entity. For example, a credit card number is a digital identifier which is often used in connection with a credit card slip and the actual credit card (both are credentials) in order to prevent or reduce financial fraud. == Cultural identity == Cultural identity is the (feeling of) identity of a group or culture, or of an individual as far as she/he is influenced by her/his belonging to a group or culture. Common habits, characteristics, ideas may be clear markers of a shared cultural identity, but essentially it is determined by difference: we feel we belong to a group, and a group defines itself as a group, by noticing and highlighting differences with other groups and cultures. ==Personal identity== :See also recognition of human individuals, personal identity. People have different Human physical appearances notably the sexual gender, shape of the face, skin pigmentation, height, and color of hair. The choice of clothing and bodily adornments vary. Sounds can be used for identification: the voice, language, timber, vocabulary, physical movements. Personal identity may be proved by an identity document. Animal identity may be proved via a microchip (animal identification). == External links == * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/ Identity] **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/ Identity over time] **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ Personal identity] **[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-relative/ Relative identity]
Identity
OK, this needs to be split up. Any ideas for useful page titles? --User:Fubar Obfusco 23:01 14 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---- I'm curious what the point of this paragraph is: :Two objects can be called identical, meaning that they have the same shape, size and other properties. Thus, when we interchange the two objects, we do not see any difference. However, in terms of a stricter sense of identity, the initial and final situation are different. By observing not just the initial and final situation but the move itself, we can know this. Whatever it is, I think it would be expressed more clearly in something like this: :We sometimes say two things are identical iff they have every property ''except spatial location'' in common. This we can say "this box is identical to that one." At other times, though, we say two things are identical iff they have ''absolutely every'' property in common. If we take "identity" in this sense, it's impossible to point to two identical boxes. Would this be a reasonable replacement, or would the replacement result in missing some more profound point? Maybe something more profound would arise, for example, if we considered non-spatial things -- because non-spatial things don't have the constraint that "they can't be in the same place at the same time". --User:Ryguasu 12:48, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) :I think the notion of identity in metaphysics goes deeper than that. Identity is an object's relation ''to itself'', not merely to objects that resemble it strongly. It doesn't really make sense to say that "''two objects'' are identical if ...", because if ''x'' and ''y'' are identical, then they are not two objects; they are two names for one object. ::You mean, presumably, that "they" are a single object with two names (Be clear: are x and y the things or the names?) :What we are asking, it seems to me, is not "Are two objects interchangeable if ... ?" but rather "What is that relationship, which ''x'' has to itself, that it does not have to any object ''other'' than itself?" Or, put another way, "Given two names or descriptions ''x'' and ''y'', by what means can we discern if they in fact name the same object?" :If you are familiar with the Lisp programming language, you might consider the difference between the predicates EQ and EQUAL. (EQUAL X Y) returns truth if the variables X and Y refer to data objects that are equivalent -- roughly, if you print them both out, they will look the same. (EQ X Y), however, returns truth only if X and Y are two names for the same data object in memory. --User:Fubar Obfusco 14:27, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ---- I would like to take Ryguasu's proposal one step further: a definition of identity should not refer to any particular property, not even spatial location: after all, we may wonder if two things we see in the same spot, but at different times, are the same. So my phrasing would be something like: :The identity of an object is its being a particular member of a given set, rather than some other member. Put in terms of traditional theory on semantics, it is the reference of a description (a predicate). For example, a description could be ''the owner of the bike with a broken saddle who was here yesterday''; it refers to a particular person; this relationship between this description and the person we call the identity of that person. (It's a property of a ''term'' within this description, not a property of the person himself!) ::This is much too confusing. Why bring in sets at all? Surely the first sentence would be better expressed by "...it's being a particular object and not any other object". That way one also doesn't raise the specter of things tat can't belong to sets, such as (arguably) properties, "proper classes" (or, as Quine called them, "ultimate classes", and vague objects, all of which haev been discussed extensively by philosophers and logicians in relation to identity. Descriptions and predicates are not quite the same. (The description you offer is not a predicate; if it began with the word ''is'', it would be one.) And not all objects are referred to by descriptions, or at all. (First, there is the issue of substitutional versus ontic quantification. Second, there is the difference between names and descriptions.) And no, despite some careless remarks by Frege, it is generally agreed by logicians that identity is ''not'' a relation between terms, but between objects. (What you are thinking of is the fact that identity statements are ''informative'' only when expressed using two different referring expressions.) :Identity is a controversial issue in computer programming, mathematical logic, and particularly in their meeting ground, database theory. Traditional logic, and relational database theory, describes things in terms of their observable properties and relationships: reference and identity do not exist between elements of a description, but are links between the description and the world it applies to. In terms of the description, objects cannot be compared other than by comparing their observable properties. Programming languages, however, are full of references (pointers), and the issue is whether such a thing should be allowed in conceptual descriptions of the world - such as relational databases. Does it make sense to be able to state that a person's parent is identical to some other person's parent, or should we fundamentally state this relationship in terms of observable properties that we hold in the database, and by which parents can be identified? A system that supports the former is said to support object identity. User:Rp 22 Nov 2003 Identity has a sense in which things share An Identiy, i.e. "black", or two " black and four footed", or more "black four footed and called 'puss' ". In another sense it's scope includes cultural and phyiological filters or precepts. It is cumulative, quantitative and qualitative, it accretes, like datae or quantae. This is proximately related to categories and "forms". Taken as such we can look on socrates idea of "joints" rather clearly. Thus the aforementioned "ambiguity" is really the ambiguity of "grey" in that it can be more grey or less, more ore less identical. It is a primitive term to some philosophical systems. An identity may subsume a name, names associate with other names, systems are built. Some of the 'identiy' concepts are found in group theory, in some things it is identical but it is different in others. Thus the concepts of Definition or 'naming' by shared and/or excluded traits. An identity/name may refer to a braod category or small. As names are added the category narrows till an idividual is represented, that is a thing is represented which by it's exclusions can only represent one thing; holding, by convention , some terms as absent ( eg time, for an a individual man). comments please.wblakesx ---- I moved the following paragraph from metaphysics to here (it was already discussed above as, well, at least questionable): ''Two objects can be called identical, meaning that they have the same shape, size and other properties. Thus, when we interchange the two objects, we do not see any difference. However, in terms of a stricter sense of identity, the initial and final situation are different. By observing not just the initial and final situation but the move itself, we can know this.'' Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - so in the paragraph "Metaphysics" in the article "Identity" it should describe, what identity means in metaphysics - and there, the above paragraph makes no sense. If two descriptions of objects share all properties - well, then that's it, it's the same object they refer two. --User:Denny 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) ---- What about the most common use of the word identity, as in one's identification or proof of identity?User:Pedant : see Identity document. But you're right, there should be a link - I added the link to the Identity (disambiguation). --User:Denny 11:47, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Identity
Identity policy at Wikipedia is poorly defined. Fights frequently break out over how Wikipedia should refer to various "identities", particularly ethnic and political groups. Many of these continue to simmer on, drawing down on our meagre resources. It takes much more time to deal with a conflict than to work on articles wiouth such a distraction. Various attempts have been made to apply the NPOV to problems of identity. In some cases, this has resulted in stability, but in far too many cases there is a "consensus" based on polling - and yet these tend to be fragile coalitions and are frequently ignored. ==Examples of attempts to settle identity disputes== *Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
I
IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |Words begining with Identity:
Identity
Identity
Identity
IdentityAndChange
Identity_(book)
Identity_(disambiguation)
Identity_(mathematics)
Identity_(mathematics)
Identity_(movie)
Identity_(music)
Identity_(music)
Identity_(object-oriented_programming)
Identity_(social_science)
Identity_and_change
Identity_based_encryption
Identity_based_encryption
Identity_by_descent
Identity_by_type
Identity_Card
Identity_card
Identity_card
Identity_Cards
Identity_cards
Identity_Cards_Act
Identity_Cards_Act_2005
Identity_Cards_Bill
Identity_Cards_Bill_2005
Identity_Card_Act
Identity_Card_Act_2005
Identity_Card_Bill
Identity_Card_Bill_2005
Identity_Card_Bil_2005l
Identity_certificate
Identity_cleansing
Identity_Commons
Identity_component
Identity_creation
Identity_Crisis
Identity_crisis
Identity_Crisis_(2004_DC_miniseries)
Identity_Crisis_(2004_DC_miniseries)
Identity_Crisis_(album)
Identity_Crisis_(comics)
Identity_Crisis_(comics)
Identity_crisis_(psychology)
Identity_deception
Identity_dispute
Identity_dispute
Identity_document
Identity_document
Identity_documents_in_the_United_States
Identity_document_forgery
Identity_document_forgery
Identity_element
Identity_function
Identity_function
Identity_management
Identity_management
Identity_management_systems
Identity_map
Identity_mapping
Identity_matrix
Identity_morphism
Identity_of_indiscernibles
Identity_Politics
Identity_politics
Identity_politics
Identity_Property_of_Addition
Identity_theft
Identity_theft
Identity_theory_of_mind
Identity_thieves
Identity_verification
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
