3 ms·
> Your statement, if true, would mean that most dictionaries would use exactly the same words to describe a given, well-specified scientific concept, yes? No,
by WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> Your statement, if true, would mean that most dictionaries would use exactly the same words to describe a given, well-specified scientific concept, yes?
No, it definitely doesn't unless you significantly extend what I said in a very uncharitable way to reach that point.
> Most definitions are not as simple as "cosine similarity".
But plenty are. As I said previously, you are going to be hard pressed to constate plagiarism on pure definitions unless you go towards extensive paragraph long ones which are more akin to explanations than what I would refer to as a definition as you did in the comment I am replying to. Actually, if you reread what you just wrote, you are yourself using the world explanation and definitely agree that that can be plagiarised as could very unorthodox and original forms of definition.
But when I read definition, what comes to my mind is akin to the cosine similarity example where even publications reuse mostly the same sentences while applying minor modifications to the subjects or adding an adverb. Thus me pondering the close proximity of the words definition and plagiarism in the original comment until I realized the whole thing was actually about an explanation triggering my reply to someone sharing my initial puzzlement.
- eesmith 5y agoThen I don't know what you mean by "definition". I showed several examples of definitions for frame dragging, including ones where re-use would, IMO, constitute "a minor form of plagiarism". Is your view that re-use of those definitions cannot be plagiarism? If so, why not?
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago> Is your view that re-use of those definitions cannot be plagiarism? If so, why not? Could you stop pretending you are not understanding my point considering your first example nicely underline it and you yourself admitted it would be laughable to call that plagiarism? I never was arguing there that the copying of everything you might defined even tenuously as a definition never ever constitute plagiarism. That's a complete strawman. I'm going to stop wasting my time here.
- eesmith 5y agoYou and sunshineforever didn't understand how one can plagiarize a definition - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28111656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28111656 . That's a universal statement. I've been trying to argue that definitions can be plagiarized, with examples which are not "tenuous" but ones which are drawn directly from publications.