By definition, any dictionary, in its classical sense, is a:
“lexicographical work comprising the words of a language, a dialect, a field of activity, a writer, etc., organized in a particular order—usually alphabetical—and explained in the same language or translated into a foreign language.”
Unlike this classical meaning, in its simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional variant, the dictionary is:
“an element of the dialectics of a language or of a simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional language, translated or encoded, as the case may be.”
The dictionary represents a projection of the language of nature belonging to any content or body, in any of its variants, regardless of its nature, situation, or organization. Any simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional language is encompassed, known, or defined through its specific information, communication, and dictionary, as information/communication/dictionary. Where and when information represents the unity, the unique dimension, or the simultaneity of language, while communication/dictionary represents the truth or the dialectics of information or of its dialectical simultaneity, as the case may be.
The simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional dictionary, in turn, consists of definitions, axioms, and conventions—definitions/axioms/conventions—that are simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional, composed of sequences and parts. This principle applies to any of its variants, as nature or as its virtual dimension, consisting of illusions and shadows, or merely of their human, anti-human, humanoid, or human/anti-human projections, secular and theistic—secular/theistic—etc.
Definitions, axioms, and conventions may be translated or encoded, as the case may be. A code or encoding represents a language whose specific dictionary we do not know or understand, even though it exists. This principle remains valid regardless of the reference point, situation, nature, or organization, including human, anti-human, or humanoid variants, as the case may be, both in the generality and in the particularity of the respective language: literary, mathematical, or of another nature, such as Chinese and Japanese, hieroglyphs, etc.
For someone who does not know a foreign language, whatever that language may be, it represents an encoded language in the absence of its specific dictionary. Decoding becomes possible only through a dictionary that comprises the axioms, conventions, and definitions of the respective language, including its grammar, punctuation marks, accents, etc., as the dialectics of that particular dictionary. These elements exist separately, together, or simultaneously/dialectically and unconventionally, in the form of sequences and parts.
Every dictionary must necessarily and simultaneously encompass the dialectics of the respective definitions, together with its axioms—letters or signs—archaisms, neologisms, and their grammar, etc. All these represent natural or humanoid, possible and “impossible” variants, as the case may be, of the definitions contained in the respective dictionary, regardless of whether we refer to digits and numbers, letters and words, signs and symbols, chemical or religious symbols, hieroglyphs, etc.