Re: Does PIL (3rd edition) repeatedly misuse the length
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Does PIL (3rd edition) repeatedly misuse the length
- From: Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>
- Date: 2014年9月17日 19:01:36 +0200
2014年09月17日 18:51 GMT+02:00 John Hind <john.hind@zen.co.uk>:
> it is stretching the meaning of language to argue that "sets of the
> form {1..0}" includes the empty set! Surely it is just an invalid
> (meaningless) construction (or arguably the set {1})?
It is common practice in mathematics to interpret {1,2,3,...,n}
as not implying that 1,2,3 are all actually elements of the set
when n<3, and as denoting the empty set when n=0.