[racket] arity of + versus <=

Well, I wouldn't.  I would expect it to be false for lists of length 0
or 1.  Degenerate cases are often unintuitive like this.

Carl Eastlund

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>