Thomas Lord scripsit: > For the numeric comparison functions we have a clear account of what > the code is supposed to model, e.g., monotonic sequences of numbers. > It's usual in axiomizations of math that a sequence has 0 or more > members and we can define equivalence classes of sequences either > constructively, inducing from a base case of 0, or classically by > stating the non-existence of a pair of elements in the sequence that > violate the ordering.
So you argue that the sequence (2) is both increasing (there are no nonincreasing pairs) and nondecreasing (there are no increasing pairs)? Then you are in the position of claiming that a sequence can be increasing even though it contains no increasing pairs, and likewise for the other predicates. I find it farfetched to call that natural. But then I find axiomatic logic (as opposed to natural deduction) pretty retchworthy. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] In might the Feanorians / that swore the unforgotten oath brought war into Arvernien / with burning and with broken troth. and Elwing from her fastness dim / then cast her in the waters wide, but like a mew was swiftly borne, / uplifted o'er the roaring tide. --the Earendillinwe _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
