Re: All hail Neo!

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:30:32 GMT
Message-ID: <c8y2g.64385$VV4.1210756@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Frank Hamersley wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
> 

>> David Cressey wrote:
>>
>>> "mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
>>> news:44498707$0$31637$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>> Which? You mean between "I don't have a killfile" and "my killfile is
>>>> empty"? HAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>>
>>> In the context of a discussion on actual content, rather than
>>> etiquette and
>>> personalities, I find the distinction between "empty" and "doesn't
>>> exist"
>>> quite interesting.
>>
>> It is interesting. It is the difference between dee and dum, between 1
>> and 0, and between true and false.
>>
>> In that line of thought, here's an interesting question that Date et
>> al have posed before to the n-VL folks:
>>
>> If "exists but empty" is true and "doesn't exist" is false, what is null?
>
> Neither and both!

I find that sort of handwaving to be a complete non-answer. A much more intellectually honest reply would be: "I don't know." or "Null has no similar analog in set theory." True and 1 both have the exact same analog in set theory. False and 0 both have the exact same analog in set theory. This has a certain elegance and symmetry.

In canonical form:

{} = 0 = false
{{}} = 1 = true

What is the similar analog for null? Received on Sat Apr 22 2006 - 17:30:32 CDT