[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: KMP at MIT-MC, Guy.Steele at CMU-10A
- Subject: Quotient
- From: Carl W. Hoffman <CWH at MIT-MC>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 81 03:14:00 GMT
- Cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC, BUG-LISPM at MIT-MC, GJC at MIT-MC, LPH at MIT-MC, MOON at MIT-MC
- Original-date: 16 August 1981 23:14-EDT
Date: 3 August 1981 01:20-EDT
From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
I suspect that few people make use of nary QUOTIENT and that those who do
could write (QUOTIENT A (quotient b ...)) themselves or a macro that expands
into same. The same for DIFFERENCE. What if only the commutative math ops
were allowed to be nary?
The key characteristic is associativity, not communtativity.
If we let * represent some non-commutative operation (such as matrix
multiplication), then (* A B C) makes perfect sense and is different
from (* A C B).
I don't use n-ary quotient, but I do use unary quotient as reciprocal.