Re: (*) -> 1

[Jean Louis]

* Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> [2023-01-17 21:48]:
> Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> 
> > > I OTOH have no garage.  The number of my Ferraris in all my garages is
> > > (+) -> 0 Ferraries.
> >
> > Don't add Ferraris, just multiply them and you will get one.
> 
> Note that when (+ 2 3) would yield 7 in Elisp, I would accept your "it's
> wrong" because there is a valid interpretation using Ferraris: (+ 2 3)
> should return the number of Ferraris of two sets of two and three
> Ferraris, and these are five Ferraris.

> But what calculation involving Ferraris would (*) correspond to?  I
> don't see any interpretation of the formula that would apply to
> Ferraris, so it's not valid to say that a result of "one Ferrari" is
> wrong.  What should that have calculated?

In absence of factors it should give error. That is my expectation.

And not in absence of factors to give whole series of Ferraris:

(+ (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)) ➜ 16

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/