OK, I'll bite. So "you" (long/short list of mainstream economic trolls[1]) stand by the textbook definition of inflation? Let's have a closer look at it.

It is just weighted sum of prices. That's it, period. It could have been other weights/prices? Absolutely. Are those weights continually adjusted and tweaked? Absolutely. But it is those arbitrary and tweaked weighted sums which make economics into a science, almost like physics. Oh, really?

Look, I have no emotional attachment to the classical definition inflation, but the modern one is bordering on the absurd. Or over. If tomorrow(next year, decade) technologies will evolve  in such a way that prices of basic necessities (those whose weight is not zero) will halve, the money supply will have to be doubled in order to avoid harmful deflation?

Or if the greens will take over and all efficient technologies will be banned as un-green, and the price of those commodities whose weight is not zero will double the central bank will have to halve the money supply in order to avoid inflation?? Is that absurd enough or not yet?

Ugh, now I feel better.

[1] A troll in my definition is one with no interest in understanding the subject.