I am getting too wired about it, but I can't help it. I joined this forum just because I thought it would be the place were people would take the question the most seriously.

It definitely can't be the essential qualities. But is it distinctive qualities, meaning qualities that are unique to the type (if that's the correct interpretation of 'distinctive')? Even then, if distinctive doesn't mean "unique to", but something like "almost unique to", or like "commonly found in things of this type, but not common in things of other types", I still disagree with it.

It's becoming a horrible obsession.

I saw one definition that said something is typical if it has the same characteristics of everything else in it's class, and I was like "how does that add any meaning?"

I can't see how I'm wrong, but because it's the Oxford dictionary, I feel I probably am and that it would be arrogant of me to declare myself as being in the right.

No.

I'm just assuming that the Oxford definitions of 'typical' and 'distinctive' are both correct, and I don't understand them. This makes me feel very stupid.

Like, if somebody talks about what they do on a "typical Saturday", I think they're just saying what they usually do. I don't see what's so "distinctive" about that. Isn't the word 'typical' used to compare a thing to the other things in its class, rather than to things of other classes?

Thanks for replying!

But having two wheels is a definitive characteristic of a bicycle. For the word 'typical' to have a useful function, surely it must relate to non-definitive, non-essential qualities. What would be the point of 'atypical' also, then?

I do think the above definition neceessitates the "distinctive" qualities being the most usual, but I just don't think 'distinctive' is the right word. Their definition of 'distinctive' says "characteristic of one thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others". To me, that defintion means the same thing as "unique", if "serving to" means that the feature fulfills the function of distinguishing on its own, and not just "helps to".

The point of 'typical', when applied to a thing of a certain type, I thought, was a comparison to other things of the same type, rather than things of other types.

This is really bugging me.

I don't know if it's possible or if it's desirable to define oneself.

Hello.

Infinity is not a number. Infinity just means unboundedness. The idea of infinity is refered to using a noun, and I think this is why most people think infinity is a "thing".

Of course, this is not even remotely rigorous, but it is the best way to explain to ordinary people why infinity is not a number and why they thought it might be.