[codex]

"The Math Gene" goes into some of the links between math and language--but that's not really central to my argument, which is that some people are not predisposed to attack problems linguistically. I only mention it to explain why there are so many linguistic connections to computer science.

I don't mean to sound defensive; and, indeed, I'm not sure I'm terribly bad at math (perfect scores on math achievements, AP Calculus BC, diff eq. modeling experience) or have terribly low verbal ability (perfect score on verbal SAT). But I do know that, of the tools I would use to attack a CS problem, linguistic is low on the list. And once I have a solution, my correctness proofs are not linguistic, either.

[qzxt]

a) OP had nothing to do with linguistics or math; it was simply pointing out that Lisp's approach to being general purpose was interesting in that you could take basic rules and restructure them to fit your domain.

b) I have read "The Math Gene" and many claims made vis-a-vis maths and linguistics are dubious, at best.

c) There is no "linguistic" way to attack anything, unless what you're attacking is a linguistic problem.

Is your rationale that when given a problem "mathematically overdeveloped" - by the way, if you were wondering about your perceived defensiveness, saying someone is "overdeveloped" in something you claim to not have ample ability in is a dead giveaway - people will first parse it for nouns and gerunds? Because most people think about the problem and only consider your diction if it is relevant to the problem itself.