Re: BitAnd[True,False]

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg131739] Re: BitAnd[True,False]*From*: Alan G Isaac <alan.isaac at gmail.com>*Date*: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:44:04 -0400 (EDT)*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-outx@smc.vnet.net*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newsendx@smc.vnet.net*References*: <20130925063645.E297C6A74@smc.vnet.net> <A7EC8DF9-DE87-4369-9DB4-BE13F63B1233@wolfram.com>

On 9/25/2013 4:24 AM, John Fultz wrote: > I'm not sure why you might have expected this to work. It > wouldn't occur to me at all that bitwise operations would > have anything to do with logical truth tables (unless > those tables were expressed in values of 0 and 1). Not expect, but rather hope. And why? Because I would hope bitwise operations would treat True and False like 1 and 0. (E.g., in Python, True and False behave this way, since bool is a subtype of int.) Let me put it this way: what else might one intend by BitAnd[True,False]? To AND values in two binary (True,False) matrices, I think we must do something like: MapThread[And, {m1, m2}, 2] Being able to just BitAnd[m1,m2] would be nicer. But in any case, thank you for the helpful explanation of the behavior that puzzled me. Cheers, Alan Isaac

**References**:**BitAnd[True,False]***From:*Alan <alan.isaac@gmail.com>