On May 14, 8:55 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:47 AM, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So since > > [1,2,3] is one way of writing True (lets call it True3) > > and [1,2] is another (call it True2) > > then we have True3 == True2 is False > > > But since according to Steven (according to Python?) True3 *is the > > same* as True2 > > we get > > False > > = [1,2,3] == [1,2] > > = True3 == True2 > > = True == True > > = True > > Okay, I see what you're doing here. > > http://www.rinkworks.com/ithink/search.cgi?words=compress
LOL -- Thanks for that. But it seems you did not get the moral? Spelt out: "Beware of lossy compression!" [Which is also the moral of my 'proof'] > > When you condense a whole lot of information down to just two states, > True and False, *obviously* there'll be a huge amount that fits into > one or the other without being identical. It's not an argument for > whether [1,2,3] ought to be True or ought to be False. You could make > the exact same argument if they evaluated to False. You have proven > nothing and just wasted your time proving it. > > Chris Angelico -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
