On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:38:42PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote: > > It is neither and you're "argument", that is to say you're opinion, > > isn't any stronger. > > *your .ua .e'enai je'e .i mi mutce tatpi ca le cabdei vau za'a > And it's not an opinion. It's an analogy, So is the object analogy. > as predicate logic and functional > programming are very similar in this regard: they both are composed of > functions which take a number of arguments. Good thing lojban is not predicate logic then, right? Ever tried to say "coi" in first order logic? The perspective you describe is just that: a perspective. I like it, but still you shouldn't walk around telling people with different perspectives they got it all wrong. Looking at "p(a)" people see vastly different things: - A function/functor application mapping an element a to a truth value - A property of an object a which might be part of a large taxonomy of objects that might have that property - A node in some semantic ontology - A plain and simple statement - ... Not to speak of different philosophical perspectives on propositions. None of these are wrong. Maybe some are "better" for you, but that might be due to your use cases. > > Did I mention that these comparisons pe'i > > are all invalid and irrational? .i mi ckakla .i a'o do se xamgu mi'e la .van. mu'o
Attachment:
pgpmqB4KRaiAC.pgp
Description: PGP signature