was looking at haskells’
Prelude> True == True
True
Prelude> True == False
False
say colour == true
when colour == true
all else == false
could have been
all colour == false
all else == true
however,
lets see if we can go beyond the false/true by using either one of them, or something else?
colour == no-True
all else == true
or
colour == false
all else == no-False
however, this masks something that isn’t stated but there:
once the colour is false then the description of it is true
also
once all else is not colour, that is true as well
opposite??
colour == true
all else == false
——–
colour == no-false
all else == false
it could be argued:
when all else == false as:
all else == not-no-false
however this seems limited, no?
compare with:
colour == true
all else == no-true
when all else == true
so false can be extended but requires more acrobatics? the acrobatics might be because the scope of false is more limited that these of true?
perhaps this is the scope of negative?
idk
am trying to describe operations and check their aesthetic scope, i think..