This is what happens when you apply maths without regard to meaning. Perfect example of the adage “Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put tomatoes in a fruit salad.”

Hofstadter and Emanuel’s Surfaces and Essences explores the idea of categorisation in a more serious way.

Chicken soup is obviously a salad

Think I just found my new icebreaker

I’m rather surprised that ingredient entropy did not account for continuity of the ingredients. Having too high continuity would end up in “not salads” (hamburgers, pizza, sandwich) whilst too low would put you into puré, sauce and definitely soup/beverage territory. Whilst there is a subset of soups/beverages/salads that have a similar degree of soupiness, outside of that subset you’ll find degrees of soupiness that are undisputably not soup and undisputably not salad.

Is it right to call this a theory?

A theory must be able to make predictions, is this not more of an interpretation?

Objectively incorrect. Salads are actually a subset of nachos.

https://cuberule.com/