This comment demonstrates my point, does it not? It looks like more of the same: a battle of definitions. If one's goal is to win a definitional battle, what do

This comment demonstrates my point, does it not? It looks like more of the same: a battle of definitions. If one's goal is to win a definitional battle, what do you accomplish if you succeed? [1] But one will not consistently win such a battle. Many people will resist for various reasons, whether it be "stubbornness" or simply feeling like the other person shows no signs of trying to understand what they mean. I propose that better goals include: (i) understanding what people are saying; (ii) applying the concepts to some productive end. By "productive" I mean some forward progress in an empirical or mathematical sense, whether it be prediction or proof. So give up the battle. Why? Not because you are wrong. [2] Because "being right" about a definition is rather silly. We're talking about concepts being communicated by language and symbols. The goal is shared understanding of the concepts (which happens inside a brain), not merely enforcing a mapping of brain states to ink on a page (words) or vibrations in a physical medium (sound). [1]: Whether you win or lose, the distinction between (a: definition) and (b: properties) still exists. [2]: And not because you are "right" either. You can, at best, be consistent in your definitions and use them in useful ways.