Okay. I think that's right.
Can we say why one is revisable and the other isn't?
( Comma, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:12, archived)

The only distinction I can see is that we can't imagine how batchelor would be extended.
I don't think it's logically impossible to extend the definition of batchelor, just unlikely and hard to see why it would be done.
As cake covers such a wide variety of objects, it's easy to see it expanding as a definition.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:15, archived)

because bachelor is just a classification of an already existing object; a man, a male, a human.
Whereas cake isn't even a foodstuff; it's such a broad spectrum of objects that its multi-variable nature (icing yes/no; cream yes/no; egg yes/no; hot yes/no;) means that it can still be revised down until there is only one variable. Hence, cake is revisable, but black forest gateau isn't ("was this made with cherries, cream and cocoa sponge yes/no?"), and until you reach that point, all other variables are dispensible.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:17, archived)

I'm not sure if i see the distinction between 'iced, yes/no' and 'brown/blonde/red haired' for a batchelor.
Is it just that we're assuming we can recognise a man much better than we can regonise a cake?
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 23 Jun 2009, 22:25, archived)