Informal language lets ideas slide past each other.
A definition pins an idea down so it can't escape.
This sounds fine in a conversation. But in a paper — what is "not much"? 1 interaction? 5? 0? Two readers will interpret this differently and draw different conclusions.
Mathematical definitions remove ambiguity by specifying:
The name being defined. Always bold or italicised on first use. e.g., cold-start user
What type of object is this? A user? A set? A function? e.g., a user u ∈ U such that...
The exact criterion that defines membership. Quantified, unambiguous. e.g., |𝒩_u| < k
"We consider items to be popular if many users interact with them, and unpopular otherwise."
How many? Relative to what? Where is the cutoff? This means nothing precisely.
"Item i ∈ ℐ is called popular if its interaction count satisfies \(c_i = |\{u \in \mathcal{U} : r_{ui} > 0\}| \geq \tau\), where τ is the p-th percentile of the interaction count distribution."
Now τ is a parameter, the criterion is unambiguous, and reproducibility is possible.
Key test: After reading your definition, could two different researchers implement the same thing independently and get identical results? If yes — your definition is good.
Rule of thumb: If your definition contains the words "many", "most", "few", "large", "small", "some", or "often" — it needs to be formalised further.
Every definition has three parts. If one is missing, the definition is incomplete.
You cannot prove something about a vague concept. Formalising a definition is the first step toward any theorem.
Two researchers, same definition, same implementation — if this fails, the definition is broken.
Next: M5 · L2 — Theorems, Lemmas, Propositions, Corollaries