<p>Every so often someone will note that a "star" is a ball of plasma that is supported by nuclear reactions at its core, and so <em><a href="https://xkcd.com/1475/" rel="noreferrer">technically</a></em> neutron stars and white dwarfs are stellar remnants, and <em>not stars</em>. </p>

<p>The technical term is therefore "star". And if you think that could be ambiguous then just spell it out: "Stars with supported by fusion reactions"/"Stars, excluding stellar remnants"</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T00:02:03.317Z
That is not the definition of a star, otherwise the term pre main sequence star would be an oxymoron.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T07:31:18.653Z
and neutron star is also an oxymoron.
James K
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T14:49:44.097Z
The status of the definition of a star is really quite a mess.  I have certainly seen the definition James K cites.  What I have never seen is a definition that makes it such that everything with the term "star" in its description is counted as a star.  It's no better than the definition of "planet," which suffers the same problem. In my opinion, we should not expect definitions that are exhaustive-- they are always contextual instead.
Ken G
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-17T17:20:02.473Z
Note the link on the word "technically"...
James K
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-15T21:41:58.597Z
2018-03-15T21:41:58.597Z
James K
<p>My advice would be to not seek a definition that is "official," because official definitions will often not serve the application you have in mind.  Just say what you want to say, tailored to that application.  We'd like definitions to be instructions for sorting everything that is from everything that isn't, but in practice they actually can't work that way.  For example, what is the official definition of a "computer", that works in any context?  At one level, the definition of a star should include whatever objects people who regard themselves as "stellar astronomers" study, because it is the commonality among all such stars that unites them.  But most "official" definitions of a "star" already exclude many of the objects that "stellar astronomers" study!  (The same holds for "planets.")  So although official definitions do exist, they are often not what you want in your application.  That's why I say, just define what you mean yourself, and don't even try to be "official."  For example, if your interest is in stellar evolution, and you are not interested in endpoints because they are not still evolving, then say stars that are still evolving.  If your interest is stars that obey an ideal gas law, you might favor a term like "ordinarily gaseous stars," or some such thing.  Tailoring to the interest gives a better definition than something "official."</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T14:57:29.937Z
2018-03-16T14:57:29.937Z
Ken G
<p>It is tempting to think that non-degenerate stars covers it, since even the structure of the lowest mass main sequence <em>stars</em> are not significantly affected by fermion degeneracy. Unfortunately the cores of more advanced evolutionary stages can become degenerate.</p>

<p>So I would go with nuclear-burning stars, although this in turn excludes pre main sequence stars.</p>

<p>In some ways it is easier to say a star that is not a compact stellar remnant.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T01:56:59.033Z
Evolving stars often alternate between core and shell burning phases, so I don't think "nuclear burning" covers all stages.
NeutronStar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T04:07:17.097Z
@Joshua He never qualified where the nuclear burning occurs.
zibadawa timmy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T06:37:46.020Z
How about non-compact stars?
astromath
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T12:59:08.007Z
@astromath are non-compact stars those which do not contain their bounding points?  :-)     [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space]
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T13:27:51.657Z
Hehe :) I was thinking more about that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_star
astromath
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T14:29:39.673Z
@zibadawatimmy, I am picturing "nuclear burning" as referring to the location of the burning (nucleus/center of the star) rather than the type of burning.  Rob Jeffries, could you clarify what you mean?
NeutronStar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T14:37:26.070Z
@Joshua "nuclear burning" is a totally standard expression. "Core burning" or "shell burning" refer to the location.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T00:00:06.677Z
2018-03-16T00:00:06.677Z
ProfRob
<p>I am looking for a official term that describes all stars that are not neutron stars or white dwarfs.  "Still burning stuff stars" or "ordinary stars" are all I have been able to come up with.  Is there an official term for stars that are still evolving and haven't "died" yet?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-15T22:12:44.540Z
What about red giants? They are still "burning stuff" and are old but not dead, but are not really "ordinary" stars
James K
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T01:59:13.190Z
@JamesK, that term would only cover red giants.  I want a term that covers *all* stars that are not neutron stars or white dwarfs.
NeutronStar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-16T12:59:46.960Z
There really isn't one.  Stick with the OBAFGKMNSW, neutron, dwarf, and similar existing categories.
Carl Witthoft
<star>
Is there a term to describe all stars that are not neutron stars or white dwarfs?
NeutronStar
# Is there a term to describe all stars that are not neutron stars or white dwarfs?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-15)

I am looking for a official term that describes all stars that are not neutron stars or white dwarfs. "Still burning stuff stars" or "ordinary stars" are all I have been able to come up with. Is there an official term for stars that are still evolving and haven't "died" yet?

**Tags:** star

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What about red giants? They are still "burning stuff" and are old but not dead, but are not really "ordinary" stars  
> **username_0**: @username_1, that term would only cover red giants.  I want a term that covers *all* stars that are not neutron stars or white dwarfs.  
> **username_2**: There really isn't one.  Stick with the OBAFGKMNSW, neutron, dwarf, and similar existing categories.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-03-16. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

It is tempting to think that non-degenerate stars covers it, since even the structure of the lowest mass main sequence *stars* are not significantly affected by fermion degeneracy. Unfortunately the cores of more advanced evolutionary stages can become degenerate.

So I would go with nuclear-burning stars, although this in turn excludes pre main sequence stars.

In some ways it is easier to say a star that is not a compact stellar remnant.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Evolving stars often alternate between core and shell burning phases, so I don't think "nuclear burning" covers all stages.  
> **username_5**: @Joshua He never qualified where the nuclear burning occurs.  
> **username_6**: How about non-compact stars?  
> **username_2**: @username_6 are non-compact stars those which do not contain their bounding points?  :-)     [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space]  
> **username_6**: Hehe :) I was thinking more about that  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_star  
> **username_0**: @username_5, I am picturing "nuclear burning" as referring to the location of the burning (nucleus/center of the star) rather than the type of burning.  Rob Jeffries, could you clarify what you mean?  
> **username_3**: @Joshua "nuclear burning" is a totally standard expression. "Core burning" or "shell burning" refer to the location.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-03-15. Score: 6

Every so often someone will note that a "star" is a ball of plasma that is supported by nuclear reactions at its core, and so *[technically](https://xkcd.com/1475/)* neutron stars and white dwarfs are stellar remnants, and *not stars*.

The technical term is therefore "star". And if you think that could be ambiguous then just spell it out: "Stars with supported by fusion reactions"/"Stars, excluding stellar remnants"

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: That is not the definition of a star, otherwise the term pre main sequence star would be an oxymoron.  
> **username_1**: and neutron star is also an oxymoron.  
> **username_4**: The status of the definition of a star is really quite a mess.  I have certainly seen the definition username_1 cites.  What I have never seen is a definition that makes it such that everything with the term "star" in its description is counted as a star.  It's no better than the definition of "planet," which suffers the same problem. In my opinion, we should not expect definitions that are exhaustive-- they are always contextual instead.  
> **username_1**: Note the link on the word "technically"...  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-03-16. Score: 1

My advice would be to not seek a definition that is "official," because official definitions will often not serve the application you have in mind. Just say what you want to say, tailored to that application. We'd like definitions to be instructions for sorting everything that is from everything that isn't, but in practice they actually can't work that way. For example, what is the official definition of a "computer", that works in any context? At one level, the definition of a star should include whatever objects people who regard themselves as "stellar astronomers" study, because it is the commonality among all such stars that unites them. But most "official" definitions of a "star" already exclude many of the objects that "stellar astronomers" study! (The same holds for "planets.") So although official definitions do exist, they are often not what you want in your application. That's why I say, just define what you mean yourself, and don't even try to be "official." For example, if your interest is in stellar evolution, and you are not interested in endpoints because they are not still evolving, then say stars that are still evolving. If your interest is stars that obey an ideal gas law, you might favor a term like "ordinarily gaseous stars," or some such thing. Tailoring to the interest gives a better definition than something "official."


---

