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
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
