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
sbl...@adelphi.edu
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
