Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think in the west we would argue that burning down and rebuilding a building constitutes a new building but burning down and rebuilding a named location keeps it still the same location, example: Notre Dame.





I don't think Notre Dame completely burned down though?

Ok, I suppose I went too quickly with my example although I thought the principle would be familiar, namely that a named place can be rebuilt and it is still the named place.

Better example - well here but it's in Danish https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kirke-tro/marmorkirkens-s%...

of course the principle is not universal, for example old St. Peter's Basilica and new st. Peter's Basilica are at the same location and of course are distinguished from each other by the descriptive old or new.


It didn't. The roof was burned down, but otherwise the building (made of stone) remains.



Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: