Eliezer's writing style of A->B, then A, then B, though generally clear, results in a large amount of redundancy.

In this post, I have attempted to reduce the number of rules needed to remember by half. The numbers are the rules from the original post.

So, without further ado, a good definition for a word:

1. can be shown to be wrong³⁷ and is not the final¹³ authority^{18 19}
2. has strong justifications³³ for the word's existence³² and its particular definition,²⁰ which leave no room for an argument^{17 22}
3. agrees with conventional usage⁴
4. explains what context the word depends on³⁶
5. limits its scope to avoid overlap with other meanings²⁵
6. does not assume that definitions are the best way of giving words semantics¹²
7. directs a complex mental paintbrush³⁵ to paint detailed pictures of the thing you're trying to think about²³
8. is a brain inference aid¹³ that refers to and instructs one on how to find a specific/unique²⁴ similarity cluster²¹ that is apparent from empirical experience^{28 29 30}, the cluster's size being inversely proportional to the word's length³¹
9. is not a binary category^{9 11} and cannot be used for deductive inference²⁷
10. requires observing only¹⁴ a few³ real-world¹ properties that can be easily⁵ verified² and are less abstract⁶ than the word being defined (in particular, the definition cannot be circular¹⁶)
11. is not just a list of random properties^{10 21}
12. contains no negated properties^{10 33}
13. specifies exhaustively all of the correct connotations of the word^{25 26}
14. makes the properties of a random object satisfying the definition be nearly independent³⁴
15. has examples⁶ which satisfy the definition, including the original example(s) that motivated the definition being given¹⁵ and typical/conventional examples⁷
16. tells you which examples are more typical or less typical⁹
17. captures enough characteristics of the examples to identify non-members⁸

And there you go. 17 rules, follow them all and you can't use words wrongly.