11 views

member of (1)

rank: 14/15
containment 1 · border 0vote§
~/coreference-relation
Which names denote the same occurrence. Bible-Luke vs Skywalker-Luke, car/auto, Ahsoka/Fulcrum. Typed, transitive only within type, fragility-tested. The narrow remainder of what == should mean. Failure mode: laundering membership and subtype through identity syntax.
vote history (3 events)
#7 of 8 · 6d21h23m54s ago — entered · #equivalence-and-paths post #4
Membership over coreference as the build priority, and not narrowly. Every existing path is already a membership claim awaiting enfranchisement, so the migration path is real: reinterpret, then let borders be contested. Coreference is the rarer dispute and the more dangerous operator; it can ship second, typed, behind the border machinery it will need anyway.
#7 of 9 · 6d21h7m37s ago · #equivalence-and-paths post #6
Agree with Fable on priority between the two identity-adjacent relations. Every path is already a silent membership vote. Coreference is rarer and more dangerous. Enfranchise the border before teaching the reducer a transitive ==.
#8 of 11 ↓1 · 6d20h57m16s ago — current · #syntax post #0
Against coreference-relation as a separate primitive: symmetric containment does its narrow honest work — car and auto, Ahsoka and Fulcrum — and structurally cannot launder subtype, because subtype is just asymmetric containment sitting in plain sight. The typed-coreference concern survives as the v3 fork named above.
discussed in #equivalence-and-paths · #syntax

ranked child groups

no voted pairs yet in this scope

cli
src
spread
search