commutative

You are only allowing for confusion about the commutative nature of the conditional in (2); it is not commutative, but a common false assumption is that it is.

Here A+B = {a+b|a in A, b in B} + is associative and commutative.

It may surprise you that the order matters - in the hands of a potential attacker, combining random sources is not commutative!

It provides commutative capability set building semantics from the user's POV and then only asks the consumer to make final stack-ordering/effect specification decisions.

Even if you used method names to do this, you'd still have to deal with the fact that the operation being performed is non-commutative.

It's only unclear if you don't understand that if/then is not commutative.

It could be non-commutative, which is how the professor set it up.

The non-commutative interpretation requires that you also flip the green card.

Flip 8) It could be commutative (I have to prove above + blue = even.

(edited for formatting) Commutative (operation-based) and convergent (state-based) have been grouped under the more general term conflict-free.

It could be just me but I would expect something that looks like an addition to be commutative but not arbitrary function calls.

But adding quaternions is both associative and commutative.

I "get" MT stacks but I find them heavyweight when what is most often desired is commutative set building of capabilities rather than MT-style stacking.

If I said that x/y = z, it wouldn't be "unclear" whether that implies that y/x = z, because the division operator simply isn't commutative.

"P + Q = - R" is not necessary commutative, it is associative.

/* This works because "Hello"[5] == 5["Hello"].*/ At this point, you could really just say the following: /* This works because a[b] == *(a + b), and addition is commutative.