3 ms·
it is now he's edited it. Wasn't clear before, to me at least. But then I "don't get it" so what do I know ;) edit: can't reply to you as HN isn't giving me th
by user24 15y ago
it is now he's edited it. Wasn't clear before, to me at least. But then I "don't get it" so what do I know ;)
edit: can't reply to you as HN isn't giving me the option. But: No worries, I didn't take it personally, just a little dig :)
- copper 15y agoPersonally, I find Tanya Khovanova's explanations (also linked to by the article) much easier to read: she's discussed this and related problems quite a few times. http://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=221 http://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=221
- nadam 15y agoI did not mean 'not getting it' in a negative way. (English is not my mother language.) Getting a paradox or not is a state. First I did not get it also. And I only wrote my comment, because at the time it was almost a consensus in this thread that the paradox is an uninteresting language ambiguity. I wanted to say that it is more interesting than that.