Re: Objective criticism of inheritance

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:30:50 GMT, Charles Krug wrote:

> On 12 Apr 2005 20:29:03 -0700, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> But it's highly improbable that you would need to add
>>> another valid alternative besides "true" or "false",
>>> so the need to "upgrade" the set of cases is negligible.
>>
>> I am making a new language that has a "maybe" option. It is for
>> wishy-washy programmers. Then again, quantum phycisists may be
>> interested in such also.
>
> I can think of a certain software company that publishes function
> prototypes stating that they are of type "Bool" but which the return
> value has three possible values.
>
> I doubt they modeled it after TTL devices with tristate outputs.

Tim Tyler told an excellent anecdote about A&~A=true (=uncertain.) But
there is also the fourth state in Belnap's logic: "neither", i.e.
AV~A=false (=contradictory.)

And in the intuitionistic fuzzy logic, which is a continuation of the
Belnap's logic, it is smeared over the continuum [0,1]x[0,1].

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.