From: Todd Benson Date: 2008-07-03T07:12:32+09:00 Subject: Re: Ranges and Enumerable problems On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Todd Benson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote: >> !(for all s: (s <=>s.succ) == -1) > > Well, not really. That gives you no information as to whether such a > thing does exist. That statement would be true, but not definitive, > meaning, that it would be true if there is _no_ s that satisfies. > > I think Robert was going for "at least 1" in his statement. > > But, I guess that's just making a mountain out of a mole hill, because > I think Rick was just pointing out something, and not trying to be > being rigorously complete. Okay, that may have been a major faux pas on my part :-) Todd