- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,588
- Reaction score
- 28,353
I see you guys talking past each other so I hoped maybe I could clarify things a bit more if possible. I feel like I've had a similar discussion with @Greoric before though...
I don't know that "talking past each other" is the issue. Greoric was objecting to a definition because it was tautological, not looking up why anyone would laugh at that, and is completely clueless about what the spectrum means or its history. Where else can one go from that?
Do definitions apply tautologies? I don't know what translation app you're using, but in English they're usually avoided when asking for clarifications... or definitions.
This is a baseball bat, by definition:
Is that a problem for you? If you say, "that's not a baseball bat," I can't prove that it's a baseball bat. It is one by definition. If we come up with words to define it, those words are describing the object pictured. It's not a tautology to say that. If you object to calling that a baseball bat, there's nothing I can say to convince you.