4 ms·
> I also don’t think that language per se is strictly necessary to reason logically. On a very basic level, probably. But how can you reason about, say, addit
by red75prime 8y ago
> I also don’t think that language per se is strictly necessary to reason logically.
On a very basic level, probably. But how can you reason about, say, addition and at the same time do not assign some singular representation to a large set of operations you can do when performing addition? And such representations are what language is all about, isn't it?
Or, for that matter, how can you perform addition without a language?
- jacobolus 8y agoSome people’s primary representation of numbers is visual and concrete, like configurations of abacus beads or the like. I guess you can decide whether you consider a direct representation like that to be “language”.
- red75prime 8y agoEr, they communicate numbers thru language though. Whether someone can come up with the idea of abacus without a language for numbers is an open question, I think.