Bertrand Russell The theory of descriptions_

Bertrand Russell. The theory of descriptions ?

Well, i am trying to read a little bit about Bertrand Russell's work on philosophy. I see that he most valuable contribution to philosophy was the Theory of Descriptions. I have been trying to understand his ideas, i have been reading the information provided by wikipedia, but to be honest i do not understand what this theory is about.
I have a question. What is the relation between The theory of description and definite description?

1. The theory of descriptions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_d...
2. Definite description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_de...

Please help me to understand this issue.

I appreciate your help.

Other Answers:

one can apply a definite description to a specific thing that really does exist:
THE horse, meaning "this horse right here, this object that is verifiably present and which we've agreed to refer to as 'horse.'

an ambiguous definition would be "A horse." no horse in particular; it assumes we recognize the existence of the very CONCEPT of horses, and that we agree on what 'horse' entails.

a definite description can denote something that really exists w/ a qualifier: "the first horse ever to land on the moon."

but....what if no horse ever landed on the moon? (i don't think any horses have ever set foot on the moon, in actuality. i could be wrong...) if i say "the first horse that ever set foot on the moon was named Ned," it can neither be proven nor disproven, because said horse never really existed. Was his name Ned? no. Was his name NOT Ned? Welll...no. so....if his name's not "not-Ned", his name must be Ned, right? it's either true or false, right? it's not verifiably true, but neither is it verifiably false.

the law of the excluded middle, if i'm remembering it correctly--look it up, wouldja--states that any given statement is either true, or if it's not true, it's false. the bit about Ned the non-existent moon-horse defies proof. it can be expressed, but not technically proven or disproven. even though we all KNOW it's bullshlt.