>>    case size c of
>>      3 -> case (size (c ! 0), size (c ! 1), size (c ! 2)) of
>>             (1, 2, 3) -> (c ! 0 ! 0) + (c ! 1 ! 0) + (c ! 2 ! 0)
>>             _         -> 0
>>      _ -> 0
> 
>   I don't know why, but I got an irresistible urge to write some faux haskell
> after seeing that.
> 
>     case closed in d by
>       x -> case (open, not!, closed, yes!, 2) because
>            (1, 2, 3) -> (one, two, three) + x
>             hence    -> yes
>       hence -> no
> 
>   To me, it makes exactly as much sense. :P

It makes sense to me, but it's awfully ugly. At present I can't think of 
a way to do better...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message