我们应该谈论一致性还是一致性？
总是或绝对最经常与我交谈的受过良好教育和专业的合作伙伴谈论一致性（即我们不应该能够证明一些错误的东西）......但我提出了一些反例。一切事情都撒谎似乎是“一致”的，但却不一致。因此，我建议我们在谈论语言时应该谈论一致性，因为一致性似乎更多地涉及纯粹的逻辑。由于仍然更强调一致性而不是一致性，我们能否详细说明一下这个主题？ 谢谢
Always or absolutely most often very educated and professional partners I speak with talk about consistency (ie we shouldn't be able to prove something that is false)...Yet I suggested somewhat of a counterexample. Lying about everything seems to be "consistent" but not congruent. Therefore I suggested that we should speak of congruency when talking about language when consistency seems to be more about pure logic. Could we elaborate on this topic a bit since still much more emphasis is on consistency than congruence?
Thank you
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
您的问题适用于什么背景？
通过严格观察您的问题的标记方式，我认为您的意思是一般性地谈论编程语言。但我很少看到编程语言在一致性方面进行讨论，事实上，我很难理解你的例子（这种二元真假分歧的想法）如何适用于设计编程语言。
一般来说，是的：逻辑学家可能会谈论一致性和一致性。但更重要的是，设计模式、编码标准、甚至语言架构/设计等主观标准必须一致，因为没有通用或“正确”的实现方式他们。
除此之外，我不确定一致性如何解决你说谎的反例。当然，可能会就谎言或任何类型的错误前提达成一致。即使将一致性抽象地定义为对象之间的相似性，我也看不出有什么理由可以证明一致性谎言缺乏对称性。
当然，我们可以对真理的一般性质及其与形式逻辑的具体关系进行长时间的讨论，但这显然是偏离主题的。
To what context(s) is your question meant to apply?
By strictly observing the way your question is tagged, I assume you meant to talk about programming languages in general. But I rarely see programming languages talked about in terms of consistency, and in fact, I struggle to understand how your example (this idea of a binary truth-falsity divide) is at all applicable to the design of programming languages.
In general, yes: logicians might talk about both consistency and congruence. But it's far more important that subjective standards like design patterns, coding standards, and even language architecture/design be consistent, since there is no universal or "correct" way of implementing them.
Beyond that, I'm not sure how congruence solves your counter-example of lying. Certainly there could be agreement on a lie, or any type of false premise. Even with the abstract definition of congruence as similarity between objects, I see little justification for a consistent lie's lack of symmetry.
Certainly we could have a lengthy discussion about the nature of Truth in general, and its specific relation to formal logic, but that would be clearly off-topic here.