Re: political

Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
In article <3eo2e35390tluc1btagvgoe7fal9bgm0cs@xxxxxxx>,
Hutch <champboat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From an old Meriam-Webster:
Magnet: a loadstone.
Loadstone: a magnet.

So which of those definitions isn't valid ?

Both are, technically, correct. I mentioned those two entries because
they're comical in their uselessness.

That was an example of mutually circular definitions. "Regular-old"
circular definitions -- ones where the definition relies on itself to
define the thing being defined -- aren't so much "invalid" (Bernie's
word) as not-particularly-useful.

"A fish is anything that acts fish-like and/or does so in a fishy
manner."

Ok, sure -- technically, this is "correct", but just not very useful
in sorting out what is a fish and what isn't a fish.


Sure it is.

If you see things not acting like fish or not doing things in a fishy
manner, they're probably not fish.

bernie


--
"Official ASC Shaman"


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: political
    ... Magnet: a loadstone. ... That was an example of mutually circular definitions. ... "A fish is anything that acts fish-like and/or does so in a fishy ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: political
    ... Magnet: a loadstone. ... they're comical in their uselessness. ... That was an example of mutually circular definitions. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)