Print

Print


Gary Shannon wrote:

> Actually, I had thought of the Soaloa word "to" as
> meaning "has the attribute" (as I translated in a few
> early examples on the page) so that we could say
> "Apple has the attribute red" but not "Red has the
> attribute apple." No equality is meant by this
> meaning. A different word altogether would be needed
> to say "An apple is a fruit" because what we'd really
> be saying is "apple is a member of the class fruit"
> which is also not equality. In Soaloa, two things
> cannot be equal unless they are instances of the same
> thing, and then they can only be equal if they are not
> distinguished. Thus we could say "an electron is
> (equals) an electron" since they are all the same when
> not distinguished by location, but we could not say
> "This electron is (equlas) thyat electron since we are
> implying something that distinguishes them.
> 
> And now that I think of it, yes, that is a
> philosophical stance. :-)

OKIC. Maybe you could add a note to the Soaloa page explaining this...
the stance that no two different things may be considered equal is
certainly peculiar enough to deserve to be explicitely noted. :)

John Vertical