# [racket] arity of + versus <=

I would expect
(not (and (apply < x) (apply > x)))
to be true for all x
Jay
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>* On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
*>>* On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stephen Bloch <bloch at adelphi.edu> wrote:
*>>*
*>>>*
*>>>* Since there is in fact a well-defined and useful meaning for "(= a b c d e)", to wit "all the numbers a, b, c, d, and e are equal," and a well-defined and useful meaning for "(<= a b c d e)", to wit "the sequence a, b, c, d, e is non-decreasing", it seems reasonable to implement these.
*>>*
*>>* Certainly, but the original poster asked why it doesn't generalize to
*>>* *fewer* arguments.
*>>*
*>>* "(<)" = "the empty sequence is strictly decreasing"?
*>>* "(>)" = "the empty sequence is strictly increasing"?
*>*
*>* That's certainly what they'd mean. What do you see here as a reason
*>* for not generalizing?
*>*
*>* --Carl
*>*
*>* _________________________________________________
*>* For list-related administrative tasks:
*>* http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
*>*
*
--
Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay
"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93