Re: boolean datatype ... wtf?

On 6 okt, 13:50, Hugo Kornelis <h..._at_perFact.REMOVETHIS.info.INVALID> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:44:08 -0700 (PDT), Erwin wrote:
> >I think you missed the point about 'logic'.
>
> Well, then I'm sure you can explain exactly when and where I missed the
> point about logic, how you think I went wrong and what I should have
> written.

I'm afraid I can't, but I can always try.

Your use of the word 'logic' seemed to me to appeal to the notion of "common sense". Especially if your use of the word derives from the Dutch "het is logisch dat ...". Bob's use of the word 'logic' presumably appealed to the notion of "formal logic", i.e. the scientific discipline in mathematics. In formal logic, the proposition "All pink elephants are blue" can be true (if there are no pink elephants). In common sense, the same proposition is usually considered nonsense. (I add this example merely to demonstrate that there is indeed a difference between the two.)

As another example, in your reply you talked of domains. However, formal logic doesn't necessarily have such a thing as "domains". Only sorted logic does. And even then, sorted logic does not prescribe which domains can exist and which can't. Even sorted logic does not proscribe against a domain such as {black chair, black night, black woman}. Your reply gave me the impression that you were building on the assumptions that all considered domains must "make sense" in some sense.

> For if you make only this remark without further arguments, it is just
> an unfounded ad-hom attack that adds nothing to the discussion.

Huh ? Believe me, ad-hom attacks coming from me are worded quite differently. Received on Wed Oct 06 2010 - 15:19:08 CEST