Anonymous user
Talk:Boolean values: Difference between revisions
added a header section for the 1st talk topic.
(→Rename page?: -1. (But I'd encourage a separate task).) |
(added a header section for the 1st talk topic.) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== two Pythons ? ==
Python twice?
:It's already been noted. a merge is in the works. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the wait. All done. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
== Rename page? ==
Line 90 ⟶ 93:
:::Note also that we do have tasks here which focus on mathematical issues. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: I reread the title and task description and took a look at the Wolfram article and the wp article and I think it would be difficult for someone to confuse the meaning of this page and what is required to solve it. If a mathematician is used to many valued logics then the fact that only two values are mentioned in the description should be enough to set them straight (although it would be odd that the mathematician not know that the two valued set is the default in most computer languages). I
::::: This is not about "many valued logics". If you want to deal with "many valued logics" you might be using a container which holds multiple logical values. Or, you might be using "fuzzy logic" where logical values are represented using a fractional value in the range [0..1] instead of a single bit.
::::: The confusion I am concerned with is the linguistic pressure to treat "Boolean" as equivalent to "Logical". That's a valid shorthand in the context of the two valued boolean algebra. But it loses track of what makes boolean algebra "boolean" in the first case.
::::: And this confusion happens a lot. Every time someone says "Integers are not Booleans" they are expressing this confusion. And that statement is distressingly common even among people with PhDs with a focus on type theory. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||