Not having a thing is not the same as having an empty maybe-thing
-
-
Replying to @richhickey
The negative hypothesis is always untestable. Rather than attempting to reason about absence directly, it is more useful to encode it in an explicit form.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @djspiewak
Huh. I don't think my driver's license has my phone number on it ... checks ... that's right, it doesn't.
3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @richhickey
That seems like a rather imprecise phrasing. Let's make it more concrete: write a pure function which produces your phone number given a driver's license. What does it return?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djspiewak
In the real world we can trivially ask and answer the question - Does your driver's license have a phone number on it? Also the question - what information does your driver's license have on it?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @richhickey
You aren't talking about the phone number that you may or may not have (the thing/non-thing). You're talking about its meta-state. Which is to say, you've encoded Maybe.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Why are you talking about programming?
-
-
Replying to @richhickey
I'm actually talking about logic using nomenclature from programming.
0 replies 0 retweets 7 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.