Human language works primarily due to recognition in context, this works with individual words, but it can also work with whole phrases, the same word can be completely determined by its morphemes and only morphemes will have to be known from the context, but also a word can be and a single morpheme, and of course here you should also take into account words borrowed from other languages, which in the original language can be broken into morphemes, and in yours be known only from the context, and the same thing works not with whole words, but also with phrases where individual words are separated by spaces in writing and pauses in conversation, there you can also determine the meaning of a phrase based on the meanings of its words, but often this may not be the case, often a certain combination of words has a meaning different from its individual parts, this meaning can be recognized only from the context in which the phrase is used. And also a single word can have a meaning that is different from its morphemes, for example, the words computer, calculator and counter based on morphemes should be synonyms, but they are also used in the context to refer to three specific different devices. And there can be an unlimited number of such levels of different contextual meanings, they are also often used to add additional levels of meaning, if you look at everything only as a sequence of morpheme meanings, the meaning is one, if you perceive the meanings of words from contextual learning as a whole, then the meaning will be different if look at phrases third and so on.
I started programming at the age of 9 and even then I noticed that programming is not rocket science, there is nothing complicated, writing a program is no more difficult than speaking, writing in a programming language is just like writing in a foreign language. Later, I also heard about a study where an MRI showed that programming uses the same areas of the brain as talking. And this finally strengthened me in the wrong thought. The fact is that conventional languages and programming languages, despite the fact that these are all languages, are very different, programming languages are “ascending” languages, they start with a description of completely elementary structures, then refer to them, then refer to sets of links and so on, in any case, this is a perfectly accurate process, in programming if you have described some elementary structure, then this is a perfectly accurate description, without any vagueness, and if you have described a high-level representation from references, then again it is perfectly exact, you just referred to a number of perfectly accurate low-level descriptions.
You create your worlds here with your own laws of physics, and like nature does not tolerate any exceptions (although there is also a huge difference between the laws of physics and the laws of the game), if you say “truth”, then it is absolute truth, if you say “everything” , then this is absolutely everything that is, if you say “always”, then it will be absolutely always, any situations where this is not so, these will be situations of a specific indication “always except for a and b”, in human language it is completely not like that, it works like leaky categories (reference needed), if you say “I will never tell a lie”, then although you do not describe any exceptions, you still mean a bunch of them, like “except if I myself do not know the truth ”, “unless I get drugged”, “unless someone changes my brain” and probably also “unless lying saves my or someone else’s life”.
Human language works primarily due to recognition in context, this works with individual words, but it can also work with whole phrases, the same word can be completely determined by its morphemes and only morphemes will have to be known from the context, but also a word can be and a single morpheme, and of course here you should also take into account words borrowed from other languages, which in the original language can be broken into morphemes, and in yours be known only from the context, and the same thing works not with whole words, but also with phrases where individual words are separated by spaces in writing and pauses in conversation, there you can also determine the meaning of a phrase based on the meanings of its words, but often this may not be the case, often a certain combination of words has a meaning different from its individual parts, this meaning can be recognized only from the context in which the phrase is used. And also a single word can have a meaning that is different from its morphemes, for example, the words computer, calculator and counter based on morphemes should be synonyms, but they are also used in the context to refer to three specific different devices. And there can be an unlimited number of such levels of different contextual meanings, they are also often used to add additional levels of meaning, if you look at everything only as a sequence of morpheme meanings, the meaning is one, if you perceive the meanings of words from contextual learning as a whole, then the meaning will be different if look at phrases third and so on. I started programming at the age of 9 and even then I noticed that programming is not rocket science, there is nothing complicated, writing a program is no more difficult than speaking, writing in a programming language is just like writing in a foreign language. Later, I also heard about a study where an MRI showed that programming uses the same areas of the brain as talking. And this finally strengthened me in the wrong thought. The fact is that conventional languages and programming languages, despite the fact that these are all languages, are very different, programming languages are “ascending” languages, they start with a description of completely elementary structures, then refer to them, then refer to sets of links and so on, in any case, this is a perfectly accurate process, in programming if you have described some elementary structure, then this is a perfectly accurate description, without any vagueness, and if you have described a high-level representation from references, then again it is perfectly exact, you just referred to a number of perfectly accurate low-level descriptions.
You create your worlds here with your own laws of physics, and like nature does not tolerate any exceptions (although there is also a huge difference between the laws of physics and the laws of the game), if you say “truth”, then it is absolute truth, if you say “everything” , then this is absolutely everything that is, if you say “always”, then it will be absolutely always, any situations where this is not so, these will be situations of a specific indication “always except for a and b”, in human language it is completely not like that, it works like leaky categories (reference needed), if you say “I will never tell a lie”, then although you do not describe any exceptions, you still mean a bunch of them, like “except if I myself do not know the truth ”, “unless I get drugged”, “unless someone changes my brain” and probably also “unless lying saves my or someone else’s life”.