“All right || Right; then for you the concept of number is defined || explained as the logical sum of these || the || these || the single, related || interrelated concepts, ◇ || – cardinal number, rational number, real number, etc., ◇ || – and in the same way the concept game as the logical sum of the corresponding || such & such part-concepts || sub-concepts.” – || – That needn't || need not be so. For I may || we can give the concept “number” fixed boundaries in this way, i.e. use the word “number” only to stand for a firmly delimited concept, || as a name for a concept with fixed boundaries, but I may || we can also use it in such a way that the extension of the concept || its extension is not closed || fixed by a boundary. And that || this is the way || how we in fact use the word “game”. For how || In what way is the concept of a ‘game’ closed || circumscribed? What is still a game and what is no longer one? || When does it || something begin to be a game, and when does it cease to be one? Can you state the boundaries? || say where the boundary-lines are? No. You can draw some || boundary-lines || some; for there aren't any drawn as yet. (But that || this has never bothered you, when you have used the word “game”.)
     “But then surely there are no rules for the use of the word || the use of the word is not regulated, the ‘game’ which we play with it has no rules || is not regulated.” – It is not limited || bounded at every point by rules || by rules at every point; but there are also no || aren't any rules, say, for how high you may throw the || a ball in tennis, for instance || e.g., or how hard, yet tennis is surely || surely is a game and it does have rules.