> You need to invoke tree to define leaves and wood.

I don't think so?

All non-tree plants have leaves (almost all maybe? edit: not cacti, so not all but most). Wood can be defined biologically ("cellulose fibers embedded in a lignin matrix" or something like that)

▲

hshshshshsh 2 days ago | parent [-]

Non tree plants still require you assume what a tree is.

▲

mrkickling a day ago | parent [-]

Ok, but all plants have leaves so you would only have to agree on what a plant is. You are trying to make a point but it makes no sense.

EDIT: you could also have totally separate definitions on what wood and leaves are without talking about trees or plants, don't you think?

	▲	hshshshshsh a day ago \| parent [-]
		Sure. But when most people think of plants they already use a tree like thing as mental model. People who have only seen non tree plants doesn't exist. And nor does any non tree plant leaves help you generate a tree leaf.