The term “inclusive” has been employed with remarkable flexibility across literary works, ranging from precise enumeration to more abstract notions of integration. In mathematical and historical texts—such as Dudeney’s discussions of magic squares and scheduling problems [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] or Lewis and Clark’s travel accounts [7, 8]—it clearly defines boundaries by including every element in a specified range. At the same time, authors like William James and H. G. Wells use “inclusive” in a broader, almost philosophical sense to indicate comprehensive or all-encompassing qualities within social or conceptual groups [9, 10, 11, 12]. Similarly, in works such as those by Helen Keller and Coleridge, the word serves to underline an inherent unity or completeness that transcends simple enumeration [13, 14]. Thus, “inclusive” is not merely a mathematical convenience but also a literary tool that seamlessly bridges the concrete with the abstract, ensuring that no boundary—be it numerical or conceptual—is left unspecified.