> On Oct 6, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:05:40 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 6, 2014 10:22:27 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
Consider the sequence:
1. Drives on the wrong side of the road 2. Has no clue that there's
such a concept as 'wrong side of road' 3. Teaches people to drive
without conveying anything about 'wrong side of road' Hopefully you
will agree that 1 < 2 < 3?? My gripe is with 3
>>
>>> No, I don't agree.
>>
>> Interesting
>>
>> So you dont agree with: "1<2<3" ?
>
> I can't speak for Chris, by my answer is neither Yes nor No, but Mu.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29#In_popular_culture
>
>
> I don't understand what semantics you are giving the < symbol. It's not
> "less than", since statements 1, 2 and 3 above don't have a total order
> or even a partial order. What does it mean to say that "Drives on the
> wrong side of the road" is less than "Teaches people to drive without
> conveying anything about 'wrong side of road'"? Less than in what sense?
> Alphabetical order? Less dangerous? Less competent? Less annoying? Less
> expensive?
>
> So, no, I don't agree. Nor do I disagree.
>
> I have fewer issues with your conclusion and analogy than I do with the
> basic premise that there is a connection between Seymore's problem here
> and the use, or non-use, of print in the interactive interpreter. I don't
> see how replacing interactive use and/or the use of print with functions
> containing return statements would help Seymore.
>
>
>
>> Or with "My gripe is 3" ?
>>
>> The second would be quite bizarre:
>
> If it's bizarre, why do you consider that Chris may mean that? The
> reasonable thing would be to reject it from contention.
>
>
>> "I have a headache..."
>>
>> "Sorry. But I dont agree with that"
>
>
> "I don't agree that you have a headache. You're obviously lying, acting,
> delusional, an insentient robot programmed to repeat the words 'I have a
> headache', a zombie (not the brain eating kind, the philosophical kind),
> a sophisticated bot (but not sophisticated enough to pass the Turing
> test), or otherwise faking it."
>
> I'm just sayin'...
>
>
>
> --
> Steven
> --
> I agree that 1<2<3. From a numerical point of view this is correct. The
> distraction here is the inference that the numbers somehow relate to the
> statements preceding this conclusion.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
