Talk:Circular definition

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)

The temptation is so great to summarize the article as See: Circular definition. Scooter

This is BS because EVERY definition is circular. unsigned comment 00:46, 14 March 2004 by User:Bensaccount

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)

Recursion is fine if it terminates.. Infinite recursion isn't really that successful on most of the computers I have access to Mozzerati 07:13, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

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)

The library in the adventure game 'Monkey island 2' has many circular definitions in it's book index, all of them are red herrings while 3 of many books are essential. --Ollj 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "EVERY definition is circular" -- true, strictly speaking "circular definition" is a fatuous concept. Take words for instance: All words are defined in terms of other words, therefore their definitions are circular. But the "meanings" of the words, i.e. their signification (what they point to), at least in regards to some words, are learned via experience and not through definitions, if this were not so, all definitions, in addition to being circular, would be meaningless as well. (What it means to "mean", on the other hand, is a thornier issue) Cueyatl (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bensaccount above, this article, to put it bluntly, is bollocks. There are many definitions in mathematics where the term being defined appears in the definition. A famous one is the golden ratio: A line is defined as being in golden ratio to a section of the line when the two line sections are in golden ratio. This ratio is a definite, non-fallacious number approximately 1.618... I fail to see how a circular definition can be a fallacious argument. A definition is not any kind of argument, fallacious or otherwise, it is, well . . ., a definition. SpinningSpark 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of so-called examples

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)

Examples given are terrible

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)

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)

Humorous Recursive Definition

A common joke is the following "definition" of recursion.

Recursion

See "Recursion".

This is a parody on circular references in dictionaries, which are sometimes understood to be explanatory, rather than descriptive. Jokes often have an element of wisdom: In some cases, dictionary descriptions lead to circular definitions among related words. However, jokes also can have an element of misunderstanding: This parody is the shortest possible example of an erroneous recursive definition of an object, the error being the absence of the termination condition (or lack of the initial state, if looked at from an opposite point of view). It is also an erroneous example of possible recursive definition, where the more general error it makes is in mistaking dictionaries to involve procedures in the logico-mathematical sense. The circular dictionary definition, which results from the activity of looking up a word whose entry provides a definition in terms of that word (or in terms of another word defined in terms of this word), is not circular in the logico-mathematical sense. For that to be true, the activity of giving a definition for a word would have to be the same as providing an explanans for an explanandum, which is not what lexicography attempts to do. While any dictionary might be believed, from a prescriptivist perspective, to dictate correct usage, the use of dictionaries is not itself a rule-following practice independent of the give-and-take of using words in context. For this joke to be a well-formed example of recursive definition, the practice of using dictionaries would have to involve a function; say, a "look-up" procedure that a computer can perform. If dictionaries were logico-mathematical texts, then so-called circular definition would amount to infinite regress, where one of the steps involved in running the procedure is to run the procedure; and, in the context of explanation (as opposed to description), this would be a vicious infinite regress. Newcomers to recursion are often bewildered by its apparent circularity, until they learn to appreciate that a termination condition is key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.23.50 (talk) 03:18, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

References

The definition seems circular...

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)

Definition of woman example

I have been removing the example of a circular definition "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman" that was recently added. I find this to not be a circular definition, since it is not necessary to know the definition of a woman to determine if someone identifies as a woman. More importantly, the example was unsourced; since I believe it is likely to be challenged, a source should be required. Finally, this example is referencing (and arguably taking sides on) what has become a hot-button political issue in some circles on a page to which the politics are not really germane. So I don't think it belongs in the examples section to any extent. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@CapitalSasha I disagree. The provided definition of "woman" fits what is described in the article perfectly because the term that is being defined is used again in the definition, while your argument against it fits the second part of this article's definition because it assumes that the term "woman" is already known. I know that this issue has been brought up by conservative political commentators (and the edit you reversed might have been inspired by their statements) but this doesn't change the fact that it fits the article. Nelil (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

My point is that the definition, even though it syntactically includes the word being defined, does not assume that the word being defined is already known -- one can determine if someone "identifies as a woman" without knowing what a "woman" is. Consider the analogous definition "a flusdfas is a person who identifies as a flusdfas": even if you have never heard the term "flusdfas" before, you can use this definition to determine who is and is not a flusdfas simply by asking them if they identify as a "flusdfas."

In any case, the specific argument is less relevant to this discussion than the fact that I think it is not a good idea to use controversial contemporary political examples in articles about logical fallacies, when there are simpler and clearer examples available, as the politics distracts from rather than clarifies the issue that the article is trying to discuss. CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

But what would happen if the person who identifies as a flusdfas isn’t really a flusdfas, they just think (even in good faith) that they are one. There wouldn’t be any way to determine if they are or not and we wouldn’t know at all what a flusdfas is. 2A02:3035:1:CA4F:43F:1EC4:C139:20B9 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There is also another problem, if two persons say "we identify as flusdfas", how can we know that they are talking about the same thing? 155.140.83.82 (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to make this edit

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)