It should also be understood in this connection that a definition makes no assertion as to the existence of the thing defined. If we say that a tangent to a circle is an unlimited straight line that touches the circle in one point, and only one, we do not assert that it is possible to have such a line; that is a matter for proof. Not in all cases, however, can this proof be given, as in the existence of the simplest concepts. We cannot, for example, prove that a point or a straight line exists after we have defined these concepts. We therefore tacitly or explicitly assume (postulate) the existence of these fundamentals of geometry. On the other hand, we can prove that a tangent exists, and this may properly be considered a legitimate proposition or corollary of elementary geometry. In relation to geometric proof it is necessary to bear in mind, therefore, that we are permitted to define any term we please; for example, "a seven-edged polyhedron" or Leibnitz's "ten-faced regular polyhedron," neither of which exists; but, strictly speaking, we have no right to make use of a definition in a proof until we have shown or postulated that the thing defined has an existence. This is one of the strong features of Euclid's textbook. Not being able to prove that a point, a straight line, and a circle exists, he practically postulates these facts; but he uses no other definition in a proof without showing that the thing defined exists, and this is his reason for mingling his problems with his theorems. At the present time we confessedly sacrifice his logic in this respect for the reason that we teach geometry to pupils who are too young to appreciate that logic. It was pointed out by Aristotle, long before Euclid, that it is not a satisfactory procedure to define a thing by means of terms that are strictly not prior to it, as when we attempt to define something by means of its opposite. Thus to define a curve as "a line, no part of which is straight," would be a bad definition unless "straight" had already been explicitly defined; and to define "bad" as "not good" is unsatisfactory for the reason that "bad" and "good" are concepts that are evolved simultaneously. But all this is only a detail under the general principle that a definition must employ terms that are better understood than the one defined.