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,.ua .e'enai je'e .i mi mutce tatpi ca le cabdei vau za'a
> > isn't any stronger.
>
> *your
So is the object analogy.
> And it's not an opinion. It's an analogy,
Good thing lojban is not predicate logic then, right?
> as predicate logic and functional
> programming are very similar in this regard: they both are composed of
> functions which take a number of arguments.
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.
.i mi ckakla .i a'o do se xamgu
> > Did I mention that these comparisons pe'i
> > are all invalid and irrational?
mi'e la .van. mu'o