The proposition was "A = B" (logical equals, A and B are entities)

The simple refutation was: because B != A, therefore A != B

That WAS the math exam!! No group or set theory needed. It's simple and this is not interesting.

> That's only in your head. Inventing claims so that you can pretend other people are wrong isn't a good move.

I'm not the only one that interprets a statement as "Math is Language" to be of the form "A = B" where "math" is A, "language" is B, and "is" is the equals operator, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43874322

Seems kinda simple.. You're engaging in a almost pure personal attacks. Care to address the substance of how the 3 word long statement is not of the form "A = B", but is of some other different form? In which case, perhaps you can guide the conversation for why it is an interesting statement or not? If you want to change all the givens and use your own definitions, please provide those. Without common ground, this remains uninteresting.

> I'm not the only one that interprets a statement as "Math is Language" to be of the form "A = B" where "math" is A, "language" is B, and "is" is the equals operator, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43874322

This appears to be a link that contains zero support for your sentence. Neither the comment you linked nor the response below it features such an interpretation.

> Seems kinda simple.. You're engaging in a almost pure personal attacks. Care to address the substance of how the 3 word long statement is not of the form "A = B", but is of some other different form?

You're in luck! I've already provided that material, and you responded to it. For further discussion, you'd need to have a better working understanding of English.

Very cool how the last sentence you leave off with always has to be a personal attack. It's breaking the rules of the discussion, irrelevant. Stop trying to win points. Let's focus on the substance.

> This appears to be a link that contains zero support for your sentence. Neither the comment you linked nor the response below it features such an interpretation.

It's interesting, because there is a disagreement about whether there is a paradox or not. There is a paradox if you take my perspective (that an equals relationship is being expressed), but none if an implication relationship is assumed.

These two sentences:

- "By that same logic you could also say that language is math"

- "Not quite, but the inverse is true."

The "not quite" says that "language is math" is not true. So we have "A = B", but "B != A", which is a paradox. OTOH it's not a paradox if what is actually being said is "A => B" but "B !=> A"

> You're in luck! I've already provided that material, and you responded to it.

Hello bad faith! I hope you are doing well today. Let's end the conversation here.