From: ara.t.howard@... Date: 2006-10-09T05:50:40+09:00 Subject: Re: nil being empty On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, John W. Kennedy wrote: > ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Robert Dober wrote: >> >>> On 10/8/06, Hal Fulton wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I do agree that making nil return true for #empty? is the >>>> wrong solution. >>> >>> >>> Then by simple logic, the right solution will be to have it return false >> >> na, read up on godel - every boolean language/situation also has a class of >> maybe/unknowable/paradox. this falls there. > > Not so. A system has to reach a certain level of complexity for G�del to kick > in. Arithmetic reaches that level. Boolean algebra does not. but we're not talking about boolean logic? we're talking about 'statements' made about the concept of nothing in the english language, specifically nil.empty? # asserting must be either true or false in the thread and i don't think it's the case that one can say that ((nil.empty? == true) -> false) -> true in otherwords i don't think it's correct to say that, because "making nil return true for #empty? is the wrong solution" that making it return false is the right one - precisely because we're not dealing with boolean logic here. at least, that's my take on something entirely off-thread, but interesting nonetheless! cheers. -a -- in order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is likely to hurt. -- wei wu wei