On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Chris Cunningham
> <cunningham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <uncontrolled snipping>
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * Points are summable " { 2@2 . 3@3 } " --> 5@5. But then " 2@2 +
> >> 1 " --> 3@3 , so " {} sum " returning 0 would seem to not
> >> cause any error in this case.
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers -ben
> >
> >
> > but points aren't commutative:
> >
> > 2@2 + 1 " = 3@3"
> > 1 + 2@2 " = 3@2"
> >
> > Of course, 0 wouldn't be an issue, unless you wanted to access x or y!
> >
> > -cbc
>
> whoops?
> 1 + (2@2) = 3@3
>
> cheers -ben
>
> Yeah. Forgot the parenthesis. 1 + 2@2 is the same as (1 + 2) @ 2.
My eye sees the closeness of 2@2 as a point - not as a binary message
(which it obviously is).
So, never mind.
-cbc
