Don't care.what i said
Congratulations, you just parsed natural language as if it were code.you've created an abstraction "ball" and in the abstraction "ball" you listed the definition of what it "can be" which you stated as "any roughly spherical object" (2 related concepts; 1 abstract "object" and 1 specific "spherical" based on the definitions of those words) "used in" (a related concept and abstract) "a game" (a related concept and abstract) "whether made from" (a related concept and abstract), "synthetic or natural rubber, leather, or even horsehair" (a list of subordinate concepts of the "made from" abstraction).
It wasn't an exhaustive list. A ping-pong ball totally belongs.the reason why the subordinate concept of "pingpong ball" can not be added to the abstraction of "ball" is because you state that what the ball can be "made of" is any of those subordinate concepts listed by "made of" though im not sure if plastic counts as a specific concept under the abstract "synthetics" or not.
This is the mistake you're making with the explanation of hps. It's written in natural language, there's nothing to indicate the '4 things' you've been over-analyzing are an exhaustive list, and not just examples.
But what's "wrong" in the context of understanding an abstraction like hit points? As we're talking RPG rules that are /barely meant to be rules/, ("they're a starting point!") written in natural language, that're meant to be read for comprehension, not parsed in search of technicalities, "wrong" would mean misunderstanding them, not disproving them.if you create associations that conflict with each other than your statement about those associations must change or your wrong
Again, no, anything stated about damage is a statement about the attack that does that damage, which happens to be denominated in hps, so it can conveniently applied to creatures, who's abstract resistance to lethal attacks (and hazards, whatever), is also denominated in hps.what this means for hitpoints is that anything stated about damage is a statement about hitpoints
If a statement about hit points of damage denominating the lethality of an attack conflicts with a statement about hit points denominating a creature's resistance to lethal dangers, that's because one is a statement about an attack, and the other a statement about a creature.if a statement about hitpoints conflicts with a statement about damage, then that statement is wrong. hitpoints and damage might be correct in isolation, but if they depend on eachother, they must also not conflict with each other.