[racket] arity of + versus <=

On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:

> I would expect
> 
> (not (and (apply < x) (apply > x)))
> 
> to be true for all x

That's not at all obvious to me.  That's like saying you expect
	(not (and (all-even? x) (all-odd? x)))
to be true for all sets x.  It breaks down in the empty case.

Stephen Bloch
sbloch at adelphi.edu