[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