[r-t] Doubles 240s

[John Camp]

At 18:31 on 17 March 2015, Alexander Holroyd wrote:


>> The expression "null change" is weasely.  It isn't a change at all.

> I disagree with this.  In terms of mathematical elegance, there is no 
> question that it is more elegant to include the null change as a change
> like any other.  The identity is an element of a group.  An empty set is a
> set.  Zero is a number.  Etc.

So you *can* ring a null peal, then?  Presumably you just sit at home,
in wonderment at the elegance of what you're doing.

John Camp