Practice question

[Redge @ Versalytics.com]

> On Oct 6, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> 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.