> Is your view that re-use of those definitions cannot be plagiarism? If so, why not?
Could you stop pretending you are not understanding my point considering your first example nicely underline it and you yourself admitted it would be laughable to call that plagiarism?
I never was arguing there that the copying of everything you might defined even tenuously as a definition never ever constitute plagiarism. That's a complete strawman. I'm going to stop wasting my time here.
I've been trying to argue that definitions can be plagiarized, with examples which are not "tenuous" but ones which are drawn directly from publications.
I showed several examples of definitions for frame dragging, including ones where re-use would, IMO, constitute "a minor form of plagiarism".
Is your view that re-use of those definitions cannot be plagiarism? If so, why not?