now.. a formal language, as far as i can tell, is made of some sort of rules-set that are non negotiable for that particular language.
Lets say that in our language vouls are dead. w wnt t tlk lk tht nd thts th nd f t. k?
If we had a different rule to add, or use, the language will be said to be different.
So called natural languages have, to an extent, evolving and negotiable rules which, even by altering them, the language is still sort of there.
From these points of view, I wonder what are the if sequences and possible language/s from them. Search languages? IDK.. Anyhow.. Am not sure they can be said to have formal rules.
In a sense an if search sequence if like me standing in space, somewhere between andromeda and the milky-way or slightly bellow, 😉 , and am telling anyone passer by: “if a b”. and sure there might be some odd and off chance that someone will pick it up and go: Lambda table bus. In which case I’d probably go on with if a b based on feeling currently the lambda is very fascinating but of a different frequency than if a b. Say I might then go on with the If loop and maybe at some point the if a b will fold via sheer repetition and/or boredom.
In which case I might go into a different one, say:
if a a a <> a a b
Now suppose someone heard it and decided to go:
ie without the if.
I might go bang with the initial sequence, like:
if a a <><> a a bb
Suppose that guy got a bit angry on the account of the bang, and she might say:
why did you do that??!!
I could say why, from a range of felt-like-it to some if search sequence thinking. However, even if the arguments have not been picked up by her, and she went on with <> <> b as a sort of loop, we could still link up based on the abstracts being of a same frequency.
Indeed, come to think of it, I think if the initial person used x and y of the lambda, they could be of the same frequency as well..
I think the interest in this illustration is that we are talking about abstract – not abstracted – sensations. Hence the language is not formal, not of signs, but of ranges. Not of communication but of sharing.. or of shareness..