> people naturally think in words, not in spatial relationships Not at all. There was a prior post titled "The link between language and cognition is a red her

> people naturally think in words, not in spatial relationships Not at all. There was a prior post titled "The link between language and cognition is a red herring" (https://aeon.co/ideas/the-link-between-language-and-cognition-is-a-red-herring https://aeon.co/ideas/the-link-between-language-and-cognitio...). The brain follows a spatial layout that, as a graph, is at least three-dimesional. I'd guess that language can be encoded in higher dimensions, too, but I assume that the sequential nature of words in a sentence would require an ordering in a zero order logic to be logically complete. As I've learned from the RegEx discussion about the stackoverflow bug today, backreferences don't have to be done with recursion and that recursion and backtracking have suboptimal space and time complexity (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12131909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12131909) (or sumsuch, I'm sure I misunderstood some). it's easy to transform your examples into one line, in some sort of differential equation. At least representing log and root as inverse(exp(x, n)) for bound x or n.