On 2006-10-27, Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> I think you are incorrect. > > Thanks! I rest my case! > >> And how do I express that a number has to be greater than >> 100 into a Nothing vs Something dichotomy? Declare all >> greater numbers as Something and the rest as Nothing? > > Well, would you declare numbers less than 100 False?
No but the condition: x > 100, will map all numbers to either True or False. Can you provide a condition that will provide a mapping to Nothing and Something? Without artificially mapping False to Nothing and True to Something? > Think about it in more philosophical terms. What is Truth? > The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy may be some help > with this - http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm I don't care about such philosophical issues. I also doubt that you could provide better answers if you would subsituted Somthingness for truth is that text. > Then when you get tired of that, suppose that "if" and > "while" are asking for "yes" and "no", instead of "true" > and "false", and ask yourself if we have the philosophical > problems with "yes" that we do with "true". Of course we have. Deciding whether a statment/condition is true or not is equivallent to deciding whether or not we should answer yes or no to a related question. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
