Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL

"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo_at_pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message news:6jh9p11f2sl6nkalet5q4bihv2uctb1gq1_at_4ax.com...
> On 4 Dec 2005 16:36:54 -0800, JOG wrote:
>
> >
> >Roy Hann wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> If you have a Boolean variable then you know that its missing value
must be
> >> drawn from only the Boolean domain. The appropriate way to think of
the
> >> missing information is therefore not as an empty set, but as something
that
> >> is simultaneously all possible values from the Boolean domain. The
Boolean
> >> variable thus might be T, F, or T/F (where T/F is a kind of
superposition of
> >> all permissible Boolean values).
> >[/snip]
> >
> >I wonder if you are heading for a more probabilistic approach here? I'd
> >contest that something can simultaneously possess all possible boolean
> >values, but it can certainly have an equal probability of being one of
> >those values (Schroedinger's boolean?). That would allow a
> >probabilistic truth table:
> >
> >T & T = 100% T
> >T & F = 100% F
> >F & F = 100% F
> >T & U = 75%T 25% F
> >F & U = 25%T 75% F
> >U & U = 50%T 50% F
> >
> >I suggest this only out of curiosity (to my mind a missing field means
> >no matching proposition full stop, but lets leave all that m'larkey to
> >the other thread).
>
> Hi JOG,
>
> I'm sorry, but the probabilistic truth table makes no sense at all.

But this make sense ?

T & T = 100% T
T & F = 100% F
F & F = 100% F
T & U = 50%T   50% F = U
F & U =   0%T 100% F = F
U & U = 25%T  75% F