On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Chris Cunningham
<cunningham.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
> <uncontrolled snipping>
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> * Points are summable�� " { 2@2 . 3@3 } " --> 5@5.�� ��But then�� " 2@2 +
>> 1 " --> 3@3�� ��,�� ��so�� " {} sum "�� returning�� 0�� would seem to not
>> cause any error in this case.
>>
>>
>> cheers -ben
>
>
> but points aren't commutative:
>
> 2@2 + 1 " = 3@3"
> 1 + 2@2 " = 3@2"
>
> Of course, 0 wouldn't be an issue, unless you wanted to access x or y!
>
> -cbc

whoops?
1 + (2@2)�� = 3@3

cheers -ben

Yeah.�� Forgot the parenthesis. ��1 + 2@2 is the same as (1 + 2) @ 2.
My eye sees the closeness of 2@2 as a point - not as a binary message (which it obviously is).��

So, never mind.

-cbc