That’s not accurate either. Scaleless snakes, thigh a rare mutation, do exist as genetic mutants.

https://www.morphmarket.com/morphpedia/corn-snakes/scaleless...

> there is a 100% correlation between being a snake and having scales.

That's a strange definition of "correlation" that you're using.

You wrote some smart stuff back in the day, so this comment is puzzling. If all snakes have scales, that doesn't mean the correlation is 100%.

Imagine there are three equally sized groups of animals: scaly snakes, scaly fish, and scaleless fish. So we have three data points (1,1) (0,1) (0,0) with probability 1/3 each. Some calculations later, the correlation between snake and scaly is 1/2.

You’re looking for the logical argument here, not the statistical one. You sampled from snakes and said there is a 100% correlation with being a snake (notwithstanding the counterarg in an adjacent comment about scale-free snakes).

I am noting that the logical argument does not hold in the provided definition. If “some” attributes hold in a definition, you are expanding the definitional set, not reducing it, and thus creating a low-res definition. That is why I said: ‘this is a poor definition.’