I'd meant to mention this at some earlier point; notice how naturally whose translates here:
This I would expect. It seems pronouns are the last to lose their inflections. Inflection for person, possession, direct object, and gender still exist in these for now. Maybe things are moving in the direction of only having neuter/not-neuter distinctions in gender though. There are also some missing pieces like the second person plural. Anyway, the words in that whole sentence are pretty close to English. I was nearly able to translate it into Tarzan without assistance!
The word what is a pronoun is the point.
Ah, it's a relative pronoun as well, not an interrogative. This is an error I made even when we first started discussing these words. The (it) you mentioned before was being modified of course. In my defense they're easily confused as they're the same set of words except for "that" in English.
I never finished SICP; I barely read any of it, really; I prefer TAoCP.
I know. I'll eventually read TAoCP.
It exists in the tiny composition rules, in checking my proofs, and in automating whatever else I need for the table construction.
I disagree. The spirits aren't just processes we conjure with our spells. They're platonic ideals, reflections of the essence of the problem. Were I to ask you to consider the conversion of integers into roman numerals' true form, I doubt you would think it in terms of your split and folded state-space. But a spectacular solution may completely change our understanding of what we're studying. In fact our initial conceptualization is rarely the essential one. Proof helps us know our model is at least true, while aesthetics and exploration can help rule out alternatives. The process is a journey to see things as they ought to be seen. To see what causes the shadow on the wall.
This is what I want Elision to resemble. I want to find the limits of the approach in general.
The state-spaces in Elision can't be fully structured meaningfully. The method is an elegant reflection of the problem, not ad hoc in the least.
Yes. I've never seen programming really done this way. It's novel, and unique.
True.
Better tools can ease this.
Tooling can assist perception, but not wholly knowing. Then again, memory is more capable than often acknowledged.