Coming from a formal symbolic logic background and 30 years of software development in typed and typeless imperative and functional languages, it's incredibly i

Coming from a formal symbolic logic background and 30 years of software development in typed and typeless imperative and functional languages, it's incredibly interesting, pleasurable, and more than a little frustrating to not understand this blog post in the slightest. Not only do the words not really make sense to me in the order they're presented; and not only do the assertions seem alien and foreign in nearly every respect; but I can't fathom a pragmatic path by which even if I accepted everything here as given, it would give me an intuition I could use to do anything different or better than I do now. And that's neat, because there's apparently (given the footnotes) a bunch of people for whom that is not true, so I have to be missing something somewhere, and that's a learning opportunity. And certainly I've enjoyed your other blog posts, tel, for their clarity and brevity and informational content. Nevertheless this is problematic, because I'm probably your target audience, and I couldn't be any more baffled or concerned by the idea that you'd be blithely mapping "+" (sum, addition) to "\/" (logical-or, disjunction) across fields and asserting conceptual equivalence like it's a given, much less a foundational building block of an argument. Now off to bounce harmlessly off that blog post a few more times.