{"id":"recursive-definitions","title":"Unfolding definitions without hiding cycles","regions":["representation","reflexivity"],"question":"How can a vocabulary be unfolded through its own definitions without concealing circularity?","formulation":"Expose definitions that reuse other defined objects, and compare compact names with recursively substituted forms.","representations":[{"name":"Named concepts","affords":"Keeps a large definition compact.","loses":"Dependencies remain implicit.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"Substituted definitions","affords":"Makes reused definitions visible.","loses":"Recursive substitution may never terminate or may erase useful distinctions.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Unfolding can clarify a concept or merely move its circularity out of sight.","challenge":"What marks an unresolved cycle, and when is a cycle a valid recursive definition?","development":"historical_branch","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-recursive-definitions"],"next_move":{"text":"Unfold a small vocabulary with a depth bound and explicit cycle markers; compare readers’ interpretations.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["How can a vocabulary be unfolded through its own definitions without concealing circularity?","What marks an unresolved cycle, and when is a cycle a valid recursive definition?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"45cae0b6d019b14db6ec636cc08ab2f86c79f6eb0c2f72126e3e27412985ad38"}