> ...because I think you'd write mathematical history if you can prove it? No, because this is an informal conversation not a mathematical paper. Clearly you

> ...because I think you'd write mathematical history if you can prove it? No, because this is an informal conversation not a mathematical paper. Clearly you understand what is meant if someone says that subtraction is a subset of addition. You also clearly understand they're not saying it as a statement of proof. If you can understand someone well enough to correct their usage of words, you understand them well enough that they communicated successfully. So why create a problem? > Listen, currying is a defined term[0], as is partial application[1]. Those are primarily mathematic definitions, and your choice of words "...is a subset of..." is also stemming from a rather mathematical terminology if you'd ask me. Therefor its interpretation will primarily be itching logical intelligence. Yes, I'm well aware, I just don't care. People use words outside their dictionary definitions all the time and if we understand it, it doesn't matter. Perhaps you should look up the word pedant? Dictionary authors are well aware of the pitfalls of relying on definitions as prescription rather than description. > I'm not going to discuss visual, linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal or naturalistic understandings with you on Hacker News about your intentions, Well, that's your prerogative, but I'll note that you haven't said anything interesting about currying because you keep assuming your audience knows less than they do. Learning to listen at an adult level would help you to have more interesting technical discussions, too.