Timeline for Is the use of inconsistent definitions a logical fallacy?

7 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Dec 31, 2015 at 3:29	history	edited	Mozibur Ullah	CC BY-SA 3.0	edited body
Dec 31, 2015 at 3:14	history	edited	Mozibur Ullah	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 1364 characters in body
Dec 31, 2015 at 0:36	comment	added	Mozibur Ullah		Having said all this, I appreciate the clarification of your question.
Dec 31, 2015 at 0:32	comment	added	Mozibur Ullah		The people who discovered this sense of the 'square circle', weren't setting out to look for it - for example: ie they didn't say, here's a logical inconsistency - how can we make sense of it.
Dec 31, 2015 at 0:28	comment	added	Mozibur Ullah		@lightcc: it doesn't answer your question because there is no answer to it, in the terms you've put it - the point of the example is to show how thinking like that happens; there is no definitive name - perhaps a leap of the imagination.
Dec 31, 2015 at 0:18	comment	added	LightCC		Mozibur, while this may be true, it completely ignores my question. I'm not asking for a reformulation of an inconsistent definition, I'm asking how one defines an argument like that. What is it called, etc. For example, if you define a "a square circle is both a square and circle while existing only in a plane under Euclidean Geometry" (or whatever you have to do to ensure it is incoherent) and then proceed with a proof based on such an incoherent definition.
Dec 31, 2015 at 0:13	history	answered	Mozibur Ullah	CC BY-SA 3.0