Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • OK, I'm at a loss here. Naturals don't form a ring because they lack the number zero? Is that right? If so, that seems straightforward enough. However, I don't know what you mean when you wrote that even though Naturals are rings, you seem to have proven they are. I certainly don't know what that means in relation to the code you posted.

    Taking a guess, it seems what you're saying is that for a given set S which satisfies condition C, no arbitrary subset of S is necessarily guaranteed to satisfy C but

    • > Naturals don't form a ring because they lack the
      > number zero?

      This is somewhat beside the point, but that is one reason, yes. The other reason is that there are elements (namely, all of them :-) that don't have additive inverses.

      > Taking a guess, it seems what you're saying is
      > that for a given set S which satisfies condition
      > C, no arbitrary subset of S is necessarily
      > guaranteed to satisfy C but you've accidentally
      > implied that in your theory.

      Precisely. It turns out that that's h