well looks like thundercat is correct.From vocabulary.com- adj amounting to a large indefinite number. “numerous times” “the family was numerous” Synonyms: legion many. a quantifier that can be used with count nouns and is often preceded by `as' or `too' or `so' or `that'; amounting to a large but indefinite number. So it appears that 4 does not qualify as numerous but rather multiple.
You're too simple minded to understand this, but in case others are still reading the thread, I will provide this explanation to further prove my point:
Your claim is that the definition of numerous is "a large indefinite number." Keep that definition in mind.
One day is one day, right? So, regardless of what goes on, a day is always 24 hours (excluding daylight savings time). Four days would be 96 hours no matter what, right? In other words, regardless of what goes on, a day is always the same.
If you were told you had four days to complete a simple one mile walk, would it not be accurate to claim that you have many days to complete the walk? You wouldn't have to start and finish the walk today, tomorrow, the following day, or even be in a rush on the fourth day to start it. It should only take the average person about 18 minutes to complete. So, you'd have many days to complete it.
Now, what if you were told right now that you were going to die in four days. Would you claim that you had many days to live? Of course not. Somebody being told they only have four days to live is an extremely short amount of time.
How can that be? Those two situations are exactly the same in terms of days, but one of them is considered having "many" while the other isn't considered "many" days. Why is that? Context. The "large indefinite number" definition of "numerous" is ambiguous and depends on the context and situation, as I have argued from the start. The same holds true for the word "many." Want to know the definition of "many"? It is "a large number of something." The definitions of "many" and "numerous" are basically identical.
Lets play this game again. Since "numerous" and "many" have nearly identical definitions, lets use them both in this situation:
Thunder's wife slept with four guys her entire life. In describing her sexual history, would you say that she slept with "numerous" or "many" guys throughout her life? I sure wouldn't. I can't imagine most people would. Why? Because in the context and situation, having four sexual partners your entire life is far below the average number. It definitely isn't "numerous" or "many."
Now, what about if Thunder's wife slept with four guys at the same party. The number (four) has stayed the same, but the context and situation has changed. Would you not find it accurate to say that she slept with "many" guys that night? Most people would agree that sleeping with four guys in one night is a lot . . . or "many," "numerous," and a "large number" to sleep with in one night. Did you remember your own definition of "numerous"? Exactly.
The context and situation is what determines if a number is reasonably considered "many," "numerous," or a "lot." And to further prove my point, most dictionaries also define "numerous" as "many." The words are synonyms.
As bad as three of his arguments have been in this thread, the "numerous" argument has been the worst. I can't believe he found somebody foolish enough to defend him on it.