Talk:Circular definition

message: The 'circular definition' article is more dictionary focused. The 'vicious circle principle' article is more mathematically focused. I think the articles should remain separate, but I will add cross-references. Lexyacc (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to get that effect by adding circular definition to the links page, which someone thought shouldn't be a link. However, I think the page has enough useful information that the joke isn't going to help. MShonle 03:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Infinite recursion is fine if it's a read-eval-print loop in Scheme, which utilizes tail call optimization. You might argue that TCO is really iteration, but for the sake of this article it's recursive.
What's the definition of a definition then? --Eddwardo 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

message: As far as I can tell, see:see is not a definition of see, nor is see:recursion a definition of recursion. They are cross-references, and if they are under see and recursion respectively then they are self-references. Self-referencing and circular-referencing are not circular definitions, and I have therefore deleted these "examples". Does anyone disagree with me here?God Emperor (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of so-called examples 

message: None of the dictionary examples of circularly defined word sets are true circular definitions, because in addition to referencing each other, the sets also contain additional nondependent elements.
"Hill" references an "elevation of land" and "mountain" references a "landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings." The references to each other merely provide comparative information, not an essential aspect to the basic definition. One can extrapolate the meanings of the terms without requiring a pre-existent knowledge of said meanings.
The patronizing/condescending illustration suffers a similar flaw. In order for this to be circular, one would have to examine the definitions of "haughty" and "cool" as well, since the definition of "patronize" adds "to treat haughtily or coolly." It is, therefore, not a circular set of definitions as given in the article, since one with no knowledge of either term can continue to definitions of the terms "haughty" and "cool" for clarification. (In addition, the definitions referenced are both supplemental definitions, meaning a person with good deductive reasoning could extrapolate the abstract definition from the concrete.)
In conclusion, it's risible that this article defining a flawed type of reasoning is flawed in its reasoning. 184.100.67.169 (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to this almost a decade later... yeah, that section is original research because we as Wikipedia editors are drawing our own conclusions, instead of repeating what is said in a reliable source. This is a violation of the no original research policy. I've tagged the section accordingly. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples given are terrible 

message: It says "circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined". So your definition of "circular definition" has the word "define" in it, thereby making it a circular definition, in and of itself. In other words, you understand the definition, you must already prior understand the constituents of the word itself, rendering the definition useless 129.180.152.199 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition seems circular... 

message: Normally, if an amendment I would otherwise make might be seriously disputed, I raise the matter on the talk page rather than taking an 'executive decision' and making the edit. However, on this occasion, I have decided that the argument presented, for which clarification has been sought, that says someone could not pick up a dictionary/foreign dictionary and make any sense of it unless they already know the meaning of a subset of the words is an argument that effectively says that the dictionary is therefore circular. It requires people to know about words from their own learning or previous experience, else if people didn't know the concept at least expressed by any word at all, indeed they would not be able to make any sense of a dictionary *because* the dictionary overall is circular. Therefore, the 'dispute' supports the fact stated. There isn't any reasonable dispute and it is a matter for common knowledge: all definitions in dictionaries are expressed in words (those words to be in some dictionary definition whether or not the actual dictionary used). Therefore the definitions within any specific language are in that sense circular. The context is not about a translation dictionary that tells you the meaning, or equivalent meaning, in another language (which then requires reference to a dictionary in that language that will define every word by use of other words of the same language - ultimately it is all circular).
For clarification, my explanation that appears in the revision history should say "...or would be if people generally were asked to direct their mind to the idea..."
If anyone seriously disagrees, please feel free to revert my removal of the dispute to the indisputable fact that the article states, which I see as beyond reasonable dispute and misunderstood or the point otherwise missed by the dispute against it which supports what the fact itself says. Neutral point of view is about significant disputes and not about facts which almost everyone would agree with and citing a source is only required for material challenged or likely to be challenged, which I have taken to imply a serious challenge rather than any individual simply deciding to challenge (as anyone capable of making a dispute about something can always do so) in order to require some source to be cited for what is common knowledge rather than something requiring to be sourced.
aspaa (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: I have decided to make this edit