[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
It's a common misunderstanding about universal quantification. The proposition
every S satisfies P
is always true when S is empty, regardless of P.
For example, the statement "every hotel on St Kilda is fully booked" is true, as is the statement "every hotel on St Kilda has vacancies" (there are no hotels on St Kilda).
Re: [xsl] () eq () vs () = ()
Subject: Re: [xsl] () eq () vs () = () From: Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:04:12 +0100 |
Your concept of "starting from a position of true/false" is leading you to faulty logic. The statements made so far about the meaning of deep-equal, including yours, have used the XPath "every" operator, about which the XPath 2 spec (section 3.9, subpoint 2) states (emphasis mine):
"If the quantifier is every, the quantified expression is true if every evaluation of the test expression has the effective boolean value true; otherwise the quantified expression is false. This rule implies that, __if the in-clauses generate zero binding tuples, the value of the quantified expression is true__."
It's a common misunderstanding about universal quantification. The proposition
every S satisfies P
is always true when S is empty, regardless of P.
For example, the statement "every hotel on St Kilda is fully booked" is true, as is the statement "every hotel on St Kilda has vacancies" (there are no hotels on St Kilda).
Michael Kay Saxonica
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] () eq () vs () = (), Brandon Ibach | Thread | Re: [xsl] () eq () vs () = (), Andrew Welch |
Re: [xsl] how to trigger a new page, Tony Graham | Date | Re: [xsl] is () a node or an atomic, Michael Kay |
Month |
Keywords