From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2008-07-03T05:46:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Ranges and Enumerable problems

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 02.07.2008 19:48, Adam Shelly wrote:
>>
>> On 7/2/08, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Adam Shelly <adam.shelly@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Some odd behavior arises because
>>>> (s<=>s.succ) != -1 for all s.
>>>
>>> Is that so??????
>>>
>>> I guess you mean there exists an s for which ...
>>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean
>
> He meant
>
> You said: for all s: (s<=>s.succ) != -1
>
> He said: there exists at least one s: (s<=>s.succ) != -1
>
> It's probably Robert's mathematical training which made him detect that the
> two statements are not equivalent - and he is absolutely right. :-)
You see Adam it's not my fault I just had bad education;), sorry I
thought it was just a misstype of yours.

As there exist some s such as ( s <=> s.succ)  == -1 (most of them by
the way) your statement
was wrong, I guess that you got carried away by the not, could easily
have happened to me.

! for all s: (s<=> s.succ) == -1

is true. Do we read each other now?

Cheers
Robert