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.mccar...@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 <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Joe Marshall <jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Stephen Bloch <bl...@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 <j...@cs.byu.edu> > Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University > http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay > > "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
