On Wednesday 03 December 2008 18:48, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote: > On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > OK, so it's consistent with the null-ary (and) (no argument is > > false) and (or) (there is a true argument). But from that > > perspective, shouldn't the definition extend to the null-ary case, > > too? > > I think not. How would you decide the values of (=) and (not=)? > Presumably one should be true and one should be false. > > You can also look at (and) and (or) and (+) and (*) as each returning > the identity element for their operation. There is no such identity > element for =. That may put it in the same boat as (-) and (/) which > really require at least one argument to make some sense.
OK. I'll buy that But it is also the case that subtraction and division _do_ have identity elements. They follow directly from the application of the inverse operation to the corresponding operator's identity element. In other words, the identity element for division is the multiplicative inverse of the identity element for multiplication. Likewise for subtraction / addition. > --Steve Randall Schulz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
