Yes, no need to say that - I already know it (quite clearly I might add), and it is not foreign to me (clearly - I don't see how you can't see that I know the concept very well) - what you are trying to illustrate is pixel density - and I wrote about that way back in my reply to the OP. Nice article - you've found a person who agrees with your usage of the word. He probably comes from the print industry - another industry that uses the word resolution in that context.
Of course a higher dot pitch/pixel density/line per horizontal/pixels per inch or whatever you'd like to call it produces a better viewing experience in one way (the ability to distinguish one pixel from the next). But, and this is a big but, the total number of pixels gives you an excellent indication of the usable space for the screen - regardless of screen size. This is because all current OS's use fixed size icons and text that don't automatically scale to the pixel density of the screen (unlike 3d games which can beautifully scale to any resolution). That's why apps written for the original iphone (but not ipad) are scaled by just doubling the pixel size, and why they have to rewrite applications to use "retina" displays.
Anyway - your usage of the term resolution is not the common usage, nor is it the usage in computer circles. You're obviously free to keep using it that way, but you're not going to convert the masses in a hurry.
Basically what I'm arguing is that your use of the word "resolution" in a particular context is incorrect. You've clearly got the concepts, just the wrong labels for the computer industry. Anyway, good luck with that.