To me, code’s code. I suppose if I wanted to embark on it, I’d start by substituting the symbols for their given names and work with it as I would a novel computer language with its own specialized grammar.

I feel as if I’m watching a conversation of my two future selves talking to each other here.

I haven’t yet embarked in learning this particular logic language, although when it’s expressed in a formalized English or in a computer language(such as SQL) I can understand it.

Jera’s on the embarking of learning it which is one of my possible futures.

Roland is much further along in understanding with all the appearance of a master from this level, two below.

To me, code’s code. I suppose if I wanted to embark on it, I’d start by substituting the symbols for their given names and work with it as I would a novel computer language with its own specialized grammar.

To me, the terseness of the expression is silly. We have plenty of paper and computer memory to write with more symbols (like whole words) smile emoticon

===

Example: [I haven’t had coffee yet]:
Take this. Substitute. Dual bracketed things work like dual bracketed things anywhere most likely.

Then see if what was written makes more sense. With this type of methodology, I could probably learn to read it within a short time and a few practice sessions.

Whether I *understand it* completely will be another matter, but at least it would take the weirdness out of it.
logical-symbols1

Attachments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 8 = forty eight

Leave a Reply