“But i[t|s]n't the ˇit an inexact explanation inexact surely after all?” – Yes, [w|W]hy shouldn't we not call it “inexact”?

But
Only

let'[u|s]s understan[x|d] what “ine[ax|xa]ct” means. For, in the first place, it does_ n[o|']t mean “useless”, otherwise

we should say:
it would mean,

“inexact for this ˇsuch & such a purpose”; in the second pla[v|c]e: – let'[u|s]s consider what as opposed to this inexact explanation we we should call an “exact” ˇexplanation one. Perhaps that of drawing a chalk

line
mark

on the place, of marking off a [“|‘]district[”|’]. – But then it ˇat once occurs to us at once that the ˇchalk line has a breadth;

thus
so that

a colour boundary would be more exact. But does has this exactitudeness ˇhere still have any function here here, doesn't it run idle? And we haven't even determined yet what

we're to call
is to pass as

“crossing the ◇◇◇ this sharp boundary”; how, with what instruments,

this fact
it

is to be established, etc..
We understand what i[s|t] mean[t|s] by to, settingch a watch

to the◇ exact time
exactly to the minuit

, or – regulating it so that it runs accurately. But what if someone should asked: is this exactness an ideal exactness, or how far does it approximate to it? – We

can
may

, of course, talk about of time measurements of time

for
in connection with

which there is a different exactness, and, as we should say, ˇa greater exactness one than there is connection with that of a time measurements by a watch. Where the words “setting it ˇthe clock exactly to the minuit ˇexact time” have a different, although ˇa related, meaning, and the

Ts-226,63

and where reading the clock is a different process, etc..– If now I say to/someone, : “You ought to come ˇto lunch more puctu punctually to luncheon; you know that

we start
it begins

exactly at one o'clock”, – is it really not really exactness that is being spoken of here, – because someone may say, could you say, there'sis no question of exactness here at all: “think of how the time is

measured
ascertained

in a laboratory, or in an observatory, there you see what ‘exactness’ means◇”?
[I|“]Inexact”, – that's is really an expression of suggests blame, and “exact” and expression of suggests praise. And that's means surely: to say: what's is inexact does_ n[o|']t achieve its aim as completely as what's is more exact. So that it ˇall depends

upon
on

what we call “the “aim”.

Are we being
Is it

inexact if we don't tell the joiner the breadth of the table to 1000th 100

1
1000

of an millimeter inch? Aand if we don't give the distance of the sun to the meter ˇthe nearest foot?
So [T|t]hink therefore of the elastic ways how we strech the use of using the words “exact”, and “ine[a|x]act”. – ˇThere isn't One ideal of exactness is not provided; we don't know what we ought to understand by such a thing'sˇ to be like – unless you yourself stipulate what is to be called so ˇ“the ideal of exactness”. But it you will be ˇfind it difficult for you to

make
hit upon

such a stipulation[;| ,] one

which
that

satisfies you.

(2015–) Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition (WS-BNE). Edited by the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen under the direction of Alois Pichler. In: Wittgenstein Source, curated by Alois Pichler (2009–) and Joseph Wang-Kathrein (2020–). (N) Bergen: WAB.