[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: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:01:36 +0200
2014-09-17 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.
