Very cool how the last sentence you leave off with always has to be a personal attack. It's breaking the rules of the discussion, irrelevant. Stop trying to win points. Let's focus on the substance.
> This appears to be a link that contains zero support for your sentence. Neither the comment you linked nor the response below it features such an interpretation.
It's interesting, because there is a disagreement about whether there is a paradox or not. There is a paradox if you take my perspective (that an equals relationship is being expressed), but none if an implication relationship is assumed.
These two sentences:
- "By that same logic you could also say that language is math"
- "Not quite, but the inverse is true."
The "not quite" says that "language is math" is not true. So we have "A = B", but "B != A", which is a paradox. OTOH it's not a paradox if what is actually being said is "A => B" but "B !=> A"
> You're in luck! I've already provided that material, and you responded to it.
Hello bad faith! I hope you are doing well today. Let's end the conversation here.
> This appears to be a link that contains zero support for your sentence. Neither the comment you linked nor the response below it features such an interpretation.
It's interesting, because there is a disagreement about whether there is a paradox or not. There is a paradox if you take my perspective (that an equals relationship is being expressed), but none if an implication relationship is assumed.
These two sentences:
- "By that same logic you could also say that language is math"
- "Not quite, but the inverse is true."
The "not quite" says that "language is math" is not true. So we have "A = B", but "B != A", which is a paradox. OTOH it's not a paradox if what is actually being said is "A => B" but "B !=> A"
> You're in luck! I've already provided that material, and you responded to it.
Hello bad faith! I hope you are doing well today. Let's end the conversation here.