No, they're not. One demands that one of the options presented be chosen, the other is a yes or no question.
What will be the impact of chess being solved?
Sort:
ludrah wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Chess has alreadt been solved--it is a draw.
Prove it.
By which, of course, he means that you're wrong.
TheGrobe wrote:
ludrah wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Chess has alreadt been solved--it is a draw.
Prove it.
By which, of course, he means that you're wrong.
Ha! Awesome!
bigpoison wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
ludrah wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Chess has alreadt been solved--it is a draw.
Prove it.
By which, of course, he means that you're wrong.
Ha! Awesome!
If chess is solved i think it will be a win for white
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
No, they're not. One demands that one of the options presented be chosen, the other is a yes or no question.
Both of them end with question marks, thus both are questions. Also, the same words are used in the same order.
Yeah, true. Funny how something as simple as where the inflection is can change the meaning so profoundly.
"Prove it" = "I won't accept a claim without a proof"?
But the two sentences don't even have any words in common. How can they possibly mean the same thing?
Which word, "Prove" or "it", pertained to you and your conditions for acceptance of a claim?
ludrah wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
I did not say that nonsense coming from the mouth of a fool conveys information intended by the speaker, but to a trained listener it conveys information nonetheless. Even nonsense sometimes adheres to a pattern.
That would be information not delivered with a language (no accepted definitions of what it means) and thus irrelevant for the topic.
Despite conveying your intended meaning, your sentence offers an apt illustration of nonsense.
TheGrobe wrote:
ludrah wrote:
What someone wants to write is not nessecarily the meaning of the sentence they write. The meaning of the sentence they write is the combined meaning of the words they use.
It's a part of randomness that there isn't any context and if you happen to read one from the words, that's coincidence rather than an actual context.
That's a very literalist viewpoint, and quite constraining especially as it pertains to many literary devices.
Also, randomness, may well convey meaning. But this is really besides the point since the original hypothetical question in this case was not a random sequence of words, just an uninformed one.
In the immortal words of e e cummings:
The whole school of so-called language poets offers a well-chosen example. Well played TG!
TheGrobe wrote:
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Now you're confusing meaning with the information conveyed.
But they are the same. That's the basis of a language, that the words have defined definitions and that the convention is that they mean those definitions.
Words yes, sentences however have can emergent meanings that transcend their purely literal interpretations.
Even words have emergent meanings. Hence, the struggles of Structuralists (Saussure, for instance) and the Post-Structuralists (Derrida). Or, just follow the changes in the works of Roland Barthes from Writing Degree Zero to S/Z.
Ludrah is pursuing a line of reasoning that was abandoned by serious thinkers in the mid-twentieth century.
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Now you're confusing meaning with the information conveyed.
But they are the same. That's the basis of a language, that the words have defined definitions and that the convention is that they mean those definitions.
Words yes, sentences however have can emergent meanings that transcend their purely literal interpretations.
Sentences are just a combination of words and the sentence having a different meaning than the combination of the meaning of the words would contradict that each of the words have a defined meaning, the meaning of the words would vary depending on the context. The convention is however the the definition of a word is static.
You seem to propose that each sentence is to be treated as a word in itself, but that would make the existence of actual words superfluous.
In the language of arithmatic, your error stems from using addition where multiplication is necessary. You need to realize that each letter in each word is itself an exponent.
ludrah wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Now you're confusing meaning with the information conveyed.
But they are the same. That's the basis of a language, that the words have defined definitions and that the convention is that they mean those definitions.
Words yes, sentences however have can emergent meanings that transcend their purely literal interpretations.
Sentences are just a combination of words and the sentence having a different meaning than the combination of the meaning of the words would contradict that each of the words have a defined meaning, the meaning of the words would vary depending on the context. The convention is however the the definition of a word is static.
You seem to propose that each sentence is to be treated as a word in itself, but that would make the existence of actual words superfluous.
In the language of arithmatic, your error stems from using addition where multiplication is necessary. You need to realize that each letter in each word is itself an exponent.
There exists no isomorphism (not even a homomorphism) between the ring of real numbers and the English language, so that statement doesn't make sense.
It's called a metaphor. You could look it up.
Ziryab wrote:
It's called a metaphor. You could look it up.
No such thing as a metaphor. Only similies.
A similie is a juvenile metaphor.
Ziryab wrote:
A similie is like a juvenile metaphor.
Fixed.
Or, an incredibly elegant and concise way to convey a complex notion about the nature of something by way of implicit comparison (or in the case of a simile, explicit comparison).
The fact is, good metaphors work (i.e., successfully convey the author's intent). So meaning can and does transcend the literalist's interpretration of sentences all the time.
ludrah wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
ludrah wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
ludrah wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Now you're confusing meaning with the information conveyed.
But they are the same. That's the basis of a language, that the words have defined definitions and that the convention is that they mean those definitions.
Words yes, sentences however have can emergent meanings that transcend their purely literal interpretations.
Sentences are just a combination of words and the sentence having a different meaning than the combination of the meaning of the words would contradict that each of the words have a defined meaning, the meaning of the words would vary depending on the context. The convention is however the the definition of a word is static.
You seem to propose that each sentence is to be treated as a word in itself, but that would make the existence of actual words superfluous.
In the language of arithmatic, your error stems from using addition where multiplication is necessary. You need to realize that each letter in each word is itself an exponent.
There exists no isomorphism (not even a homomorphism) between the ring of real numbers and the English language, so that statement doesn't make sense.
It's called a metaphor. You could look it up.
Metaphor - A subset in the set of lies.
Shaman Truthlies disagrees.
I suspect it is, but it's not been solved.