Question about None
tjreedy at udel.edu
Mon Jun 15 01:14:10 CEST 2009
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> So-called "vacuous truth". It's often useful to have all() return
> true, but it's not *always* useful -- there are reasonable cases
> where the opposite behaviour would be useful:
> if all(the evidence points to the Defendant's guilt) then: the
> Defendant is guilty execute(the Defendant)
> sadly means that if there is no evidence that a crime has been
> committed, the person accused of committing the imaginary crime will
> be executed.
It seems to me that the absurd conclusion implied by the theorem
invalidates the theorem rather than supporting your point. No evidence
is only the endpoint of a continuum. Suppose that 'all' is one teensy
weensy bit of evidence. A drunked bystander gives a vague description
that fits. Or twenty years before, the defendent argued with the
deceased and said 'I wish you were dead'. Should the person be executed?
I say not. You?
Of course, a person would only be a defendant in the absence of evidence
under a depraved regime that would not much care if there were.
Try finding another 'reasonable case'.
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-list