= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Tarski Statements as Rationalist Exercise - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (8)
You mentioned something commuting with something else. Can you draw a diagram or write an equation of this? It doesn't have to be complicated.
By that I only meant what I described in the same paragraph: that the relation between the apple and its property is the same one in two contexts: when you start from considering the apple itself, and when you start from the note. The same fact, integrating the evidence from two sources. It's an loose analogy with commuting in category theory, you arrive at the same result no matter which path you followed.
Yes, I'm familiar with category theory commutative diagrams. Still, I think it would be beneficial to draw the diagram (or write the equation - I can draw the diagram from the equation), because it requires you to name the elements, the dots and the arrows.