Nonmathematicians really don't know how to write explanatory prose.
Show this thread
-
This is an argument for not defining things, not for defining things in a way that makes your definition impossible to follow.
It's frequently the case that people can and should introduce terms without fully defining them (violating your first precept). And often entire books (or series of books) are written that may be viewed as attempts at definition of a term or terms; very strung out.
-
-
"fully" is your qualifier, not mine!
-
And honestly my experience of people taking an entire book to define a term is that it's usually badly structured writing that would be significantly improved by having a much tighter introduction that explains the desired scope of the term.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.