Kindly review my PR for improving the logical operation of arrays and aligning them with Kleene's Principles. Please tell me if any issues. Finally heading out to touch some grass :)

@simonjayhawkins Kindly review my PR and let me know 👍 (If in testing phase or not)

This Wikipedia article may be useful to understand the changes in this PR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic#Kleene_and_Priest_logics

It's also important to point-out that this is a breaking change and should have an entry in doc/source/whatsnew/v3.0.0.rst.

Also, bool[pyarrow] already implements 3VL

import pandas as pd
index = list("FUT")
a = pd.Series([False, None, True], index=index, dtype="bool[pyarrow]")
t = pd.Series([True] * 3, index=index, dtype = "bool[pyarrow]")
u = pd.Series([None] * 3, index=index, dtype = "bool[pyarrow]")
f = pd.Series([False] * 3, index=index, dtype = "bool[pyarrow]")
print("negation")
print(~a)
methods = ["__and__", "__or__", "__xor__"]
for method in methods:
 print(method)
 fn = getattr(a, method)
 observed = pd.DataFrame(dict(F=fn(f), U=fn(u), T=fn(t)), index=index)
 print(observed)

Output

negation
F True
U <NA>
T False
dtype: bool[pyarrow]
__and__
 F U T
F False False False
U False <NA> <NA>
T False <NA> True
__or__
 F U T
F False <NA> True
U <NA> <NA> True
T True True True
__xor__
 F U T
F False <NA> True
U <NA> <NA> <NA>
T True <NA> False

@Alvaro-Kothe Yes I agree, the pyarrow implementation follows the kleene principle whereas bool does not. Thank you for attaching the wiki article 👍 The core members of pandas lib are the ones who fill the whatsnew right?

@Tarun2605 Usually, whoever creates the pull request should fill the whatsnew

@Alvaro-Kothe Ohhhh!! Could you please tell me where do I fill it out? Thank you so much btw man

Utilize your own discretion or await guidance from a core member.

Okkk

@simonjayhawkins Kindly review my PR or have another member review it please

Thanks @Tarun2605 for the PR.

This PR is changing tested behavior.

#62260 (comment) states

For the result on main / pandas 3.0, this actually seems correct to me.

so i'm not expecting to see any changed behavior other than w.r.t the warning

FutureWarning: Operation between non boolean Series with different indexes will no longer return a boolean result in a future version. Cast both Series to object type to maintain the prior behavior.

Thank you sob much for your reply.
Yes, I was initially set out to change that only but then i noticed how kleene's principle was not being followed bool arrays. So should we let this inconsistency go with null values?

Also, bool[pyarrow] already implements 3VL

import pandas as pd
index = list("FUT")
a = pd.Series([False, None, True], index=index, dtype="bool[pyarrow]")
t = pd.Series([True] * 3, index=index, dtype = "bool[pyarrow]")
u = pd.Series([None] * 3, index=index, dtype = "bool[pyarrow]")
f = pd.Series([False] * 3, index=index, dtype = "bool[pyarrow]")
print("negation")
print(~a)
methods = ["__and__", "__or__", "__xor__"]
for method in methods:
 print(method)
 fn = getattr(a, method)
 observed = pd.DataFrame(dict(F=fn(f), U=fn(u), T=fn(t)), index=index)
 print(observed)

Output

negation
F True
U <NA>
T False
dtype: bool[pyarrow]
__and__
 F U T
F False False False
U False <NA> <NA>
T False <NA> True
__or__
 F U T
F False <NA> True
U <NA> <NA> True
T True True True
__xor__
 F U T
F False <NA> True
U <NA> <NA> <NA>
T True <NA> False

As nicely stated these examples will break or give wrong values when the array d type is converted to bool. Thats the inconsistency i was trying to solve.
Thank you

Thats the inconsistency i was trying to solve.

If this PR is not addressing the FutureWarning then please remove the link to that issue.

Can you open an specific issue to discuss this proposal or link to an existing issue rather than us discussing on a PR. PRs can get closed or go stale and the discussion then has less visibility.

Thats the inconsistency i was trying to solve.

If this PR is not addressing the FutureWarning then please remove the link to that issue.

Can you open an specific issue to discuss this proposal or link to an existing issue rather than us discussing on a PR. PRs can get closed or go stale and the discussion then has less visibility.

I see, ok sure I will open an issue and have discussion and then raise my PR