Re: Why Lisp?
- From: Dihydrogen Monoxide <rares.marian@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 02:29:59 GMT
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:20:08 -0400, Ken Tilton wrote:
BTW, I am just a simple application programmer, I am not smart like
youse guys. Is that bit about the empty list being set-theoretic fals
true? If so, seems to me Scheme either needs fixing or if they insist on
this a set-theoretic set of conditionals.
kenny
Well my answer to stuff like
The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is false.
is that those sentences are both compositionally false while consequently
true, assuming they are treated compositionally bound and consequently
unbound, because the result is a circular reference. A circular reference
is a null reference. A null reference can't be anything but a reference.
It cannot is anything. Therefore X which cannot is, cannot be said to is.
Those sentences are the parens (* ducks *) around the empty set in the
space of sentences.
So yes empty = false.
Of course, Georg Cantor and friends chose to go around the world in the
other direction.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why Lisp?
- From: Daniel Janus
- Re: Why Lisp?
- Prev by Date: Re: Difference between Allegro CL 8 and clisp ?
- Next by Date: Re: why are Macros special? & Protection of codes.
- Previous by thread: Difference between Allegro CL 8 and clisp ?
- Next by thread: Re: Why Lisp?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|