[predictand]

I learned about Vacuous Truth the hard way recently when I found out that `every` method in JavaScript returns `true` for empty arrays as well.

[marcosdumay]

In programing, you can always rewrite that first rule as "all" and "some" must compose over set union. So, "all (A ∪ B) == all A && all B", and "some (A ∪ B) == some A || some B".

That lets you discover the answer for the empty set.

[LudwigNagasena]

Which leads to a funny fact that if all elements of the set S satisfy proposition P it doesn’t necessarily imply that some elements of the set S satisfy proposition P.

[aabhay]

My description of the power set is by definition allowing all to imply some

[LudwigNagasena]

I don’t follow. Can you elaborate?

[Spivak]

The power set of a set S, P(S) (or sometimes 2^S) is the set of all subsets of S including both the empty set and the set itself.

To bridge the gap with programming, make a map f: S -> bool which represents our predicate.

all(f, S) => either S is empty or for all elements s in S, f(s) = True.

Now make f work on sets as well as individual values. f({x, y}) means True if f(x) and f(y) are True, False otherwise.

all(f, S) => all(f, P(S))

If we take the opposite and define all(f, {}) = False then this doesn't work and in addition all(f, P(S)) = False for all sets S.

[LudwigNagasena]

That doesn’t explain how all(f,{}) => some(f,{}) may be made true with your definition preserving the distributive property.

[crazygringo]

As I think you would hope from a practical standpoint -- you don't want to have to handle a special case of false and always check if the array is empty.

I agree it's only logical in engineering contexts like that though, not in everyday language.

[adamc]

This is even what I expected, but I majored in math, so maybe that biased my response.

[chiakic]

But if you consider “liar” to be an object,

> liar.hats.every((hat) => hat.color === "green")

will throw a TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined. That’s definitely not `true`.

[wrigby]

This depends on `liar.hats` being undefined, but what if `liar.hats` is an empty array? That seems like an equally valid way of representing a person that owns no hats.

[ecshafer]

You implemented the problem wrong, and thus got an error. If hats is a list of colors, then every hat != green is true if the list is empty.

[LudwigNagasena]

I wouldn’t say it is wrong per se. It certainly defies the conventional translation into FOL, but there is no a priori reason to pick the conventional formalism of FOL for this problem.

[Volundr]

I don't think that's true. What if the liar buys a red hat?

    liar.hats.push("red")

This only works if hats is an empty array. If hats is just not a property people have (undefined in the example), then you can't represent adding them.

Now you might argue hats can be null when a user doesn't have them, or a non-empty array, but that's clearly not a great way to represent that. Now you have owning no hats represented two different ways as an empty array or null, and must build special casing around the null case (unless you are using a language where nil and the empty array are one and the same)

[recursive]

Hm. No.

    const liar = { hats: [] };
    liar.hats.every(hat => hat.color === "green")

    true