[glatt]

Book 1

A hunter is standing near a large tree, and a squirrel is hanging onto the opposite side of the tree. The hunter now moves in a circle completely around the tree until he regains his starting position, but at the same time the squirrel also moves around the tree in the same direction and in such a manner as it always faces the man, and as the tree is always between it and him. Now, the problem is this: Does the hunter go around the squirrel? The correct answer is not `yes,' and it is not `no.' The correct reply requires an exact definition of the verb, `go around.' If we define `go around' as meaning that the hunter is first south, then west, then north, then east, and finally south of the squirrel, he very obviously does go around it. But if we agree that `go around' shall mean first opposite the squirrel's belly, then it's right side, then it's back, then it's left side, the answer is just as definitely `no.' Here, again, we see the necessity for exact definition. It is inimical to the integrity of our thinking to use words loosely. Lack of careful definition sires more illegitimate offspring, widely varying sports that take the form of controversies, debates, arguments, than a whole countryside of rabbit farms. Many problems outside science would vanish into thin air if definition were exact.

Book 2

book 3


Book 4

Does the hunter go around the squirrel? The answer is, "yes" if by "around" one means that the hunter at various times occupies the circumference of the circle with the squirrel near the center. However, if "around" means that the hunter is at various times to the front, sides, and back of the squirrel, the answer is "no." If "around" is not defined, there is no answer, and the argument can continue indefinitely