On 02/16/2015 01:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Speaking of unnatural languages, this just in, in response from someone off-list but maybe apropos to some if not many in this group:
++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
Well, what's fascinating is that this language is more natural to the computer than it is to us humans. And it is more natural for expressing logic than is, say, English. It's my fault for failing to mention the fact that whether a language is natural to an act/concept depends fundamentally on the act/concept. I'd even argue that it depends less on the constitution of the observer than we might otherwise think. Languages like the above probably come fairly natural to, say, a logician (as much a bag of chemicals as, say, a musician or sausage maker) primarily because a logician spends a lot of time and energy committing the _act_ of logic.
-- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
