A definition identifies the meaning of the word being defined (the definiendum) with the meaning of the words doing the defining (the definiens).
It declares their meanings identical, which implies equivalent, which implies symmetric.
The ruling makes law follow a precising definition, which imposes limitations on the conventional meaning to reduce vagueness.
The word “means” is also used for logical entailment, in which case it’s not symmetric. The dog’s coat is wet which means it’s raining. And of course, a man is a featherless biped, but not every featherless biped is a man.
But the way, we are not arguing about the same thing. You think I’m defending the stupid ruling. I’m not, I’m just saying that language is not algebra.
In fact to paraphrase Nish Kumar, if we’re going about precisely characterizing things, a more interesting precise characterization than the meaning of the word woman is the characterization of the people who obsess about it as transphobic idiots.
I don’t think anything in the ruling hinged on the semantics if the world “means”. That said, there is nothing ambiguous in saying that a logical relation is not symmetric. Symmetry, like reflexivity, transitivity etc, are well defined in algebra.
Only if you assume that the word “means” defines a symmetric relation.
When does it not?
A definition identifies the meaning of the word being defined (the definiendum) with the meaning of the words doing the defining (the definiens). It declares their meanings identical, which implies equivalent, which implies symmetric.
The ruling makes law follow a precising definition, which imposes limitations on the conventional meaning to reduce vagueness.
The word “means” is also used for logical entailment, in which case it’s not symmetric. The dog’s coat is wet which means it’s raining. And of course, a man is a featherless biped, but not every featherless biped is a man.
But the way, we are not arguing about the same thing. You think I’m defending the stupid ruling. I’m not, I’m just saying that language is not algebra.
In fact to paraphrase Nish Kumar, if we’re going about precisely characterizing things, a more interesting precise characterization than the meaning of the word woman is the characterization of the people who obsess about it as transphobic idiots.
Yes in the contexts you gave.
No in this context: they’re referring to the ruling on the legal definition.
Where does it say that?
It’s a technical discussion of a legal definition. Defense/preference/endorsement is not implied.
Pinning down legal definitions is what the legal system does. No one is claiming to personally defend it.
Laws need to be explicit.
I don’t think anything in the ruling hinged on the semantics if the world “means”. That said, there is nothing ambiguous in saying that a logical relation is not symmetric. Symmetry, like reflexivity, transitivity etc, are well defined in algebra.