I wasn't planning to post anymore on this subject but since you asked me direct questions I thought to give it one more shot.
DNAunion: Thanks but no thanks. I already have college physics books that tell me all I need to know about it. You got any?
Of course. I have Halliday and Resnick. Doesn't everybody?
Frumious Bandersnatch: Of course it isn't. Who said it was?
DNAunion: Uhm, the author of the physical science text I quoted from. Don't you pay attention?
You're right. I was still thinking of the definition you quoted from Solomon et. al where a closed system is clearly defined as isolated. This illustrates why I really dislike the usage that implicitly refers to a closed system as isolated. Merkin is wrong unless he previously specifically stated that by his definition any closed system exchanges neither mass nor energy. BTW I looked through six of my texts on different subjects (physical chemistry, biophysics, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics) that define thermodynamic systems. All but one, a biochemistry text, use what you call the trichotomous nomenclature and that one is at least clear that the closed systems referred to exchange neither mass nor energy.
3) We both agree that the "Best" classification scheme is the trichotomous one.
I am glad we agree. I wasn't quite sure from your first posts on the subject.
5) We both agree that a closed system can exchange energy, but not matter, with its surroundings.
Yes we agree when using the standard definition you gave in post 49 and the superior "trichotomous" classification scheme. I think we also agree that when you refer to a closed(isolated) system you mean a system that exchanges neither mass or energy.
The only disagreement seems to be that Frumious Bandersnatch mistakenly believes that I used "(isolated)" as a regular adjective, as in "an isolated closed system...", which I did not. I used it as a means of providing clarification - elimination of ambiguity - while repeating the statement the original poster made.
Actually, all I said was that you may have added to the confusion by
first using closed(isolated) as in post 38 and
then giving a definition of closed that is not isolated in post 49. I understood exactly what you meant when you wrote closed(isolated) and I said that you and Badfish were correct. I further said I thought it might be confusing to others when you
later presented (3 times in the same post) a definition of a closed system that was not isolated. It seemed to me that you first eliminated ambiguity and then brought it back again. I think it would have been OK if you had specified at that time that you were discussing different systems of nomenclature(as you did later), especially since you followed that up with three posts 51,52,53 quoting authors that were referring to closed systems that were considered isolated.
Maybe I was wrong about you possibly adding to the confusion but it seems to me that you were a bit hypersensitive to this relatively minor criticism. You actually blew up at my post #42 without even seeming to realize that I was completely agreeing with you in that one. In fact, I probably was wrong about confusion. For one thing I doubt that anyone else is paying the least bit of attention to this semantic argument so how could anyone have been confused? I did say in a later post that I think adiabatic closed system is a better terminology than closed(isolated) but I will admit that I was being really, really picky because I was feeling a bit frumious at that time for some reason and closed(isolated) as you wrote actually does say the same thing.
The Frumious Bandersnatch