Since "God made the integers…” perhaps the question of whether 0 is an integer is best left to theologians. On the other hand, in set theory a tuple is defined as a set containing two elements and in category theory, a product is a limit of a discrete category with two objects. Of course you can treat a tuple as a decorated container containing one element but I doubt many mathematicians think of them this way. Before anyone points out that I shouldn’t think of types as sets, the same applies to \omega-complete partial orders. Perhaps I had better be explicit and say please no aka -1.

The length of ((,) a) is exactly one. Anything else is ridiculous. Try arguing against that, instead of a position that does not exist ("length of tuples"). I wrote this instance some number of years ago (about 11), and have used it on teams all over the place. Not once was there an issue that was not quickly corrected, and thereby achieving the practical benefits that come with, by providing a better understanding. That understanding is above. The length of ((,) a) is exactly one. Say it with me.

On 01/04/17 10:08, Francesco Ariis wrote:

...

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 07:59:00AM +1000, Tony Morris wrote:

...

A contrary, consistent position would mean there is a belief in all of the following:

* the length of any value of the type ((,) a) is not 1 * 0 is not an integer

Dominic Steinitz dominic@steinitz.org http://idontgetoutmuch.wordpress.com