As Mike points out they do agree already, I think. For example consider the following.
(i.3) +/ 0 0 1 2 (i.3) +/&, 0 0 1 2 (i.3) + table &, 0 ┌─┬─┐ │+│0│ ├─┼─┤ │0│0│ │1│1│ │2│2│ └─┴─┘ (i.3) + table 0 ┌─┬──────┐ │+│0 │ ├─┼──────┤ │0│ 0 1 2│ │1│ │ │2│ │ └─┴──────┘ On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Mike Day <[email protected]> wrote: > (I hope this displays alright, but Thunderbird or > something will probably chuck in some line-throws) > > Consider > (i.3) + table ,0 > +-+-+ > |+|0| > +-+-+ > |0|0| > |1|1| > |2|2| > +-+-+ > (i.3) + table 1 2 > +-+---+ > |+|1 2| > +-+---+ > |0|1 2| > |1|2 3| > |2|3 4| > +-+---+ > and > 0 + table i.3 > +-+----------+ > |+|0 | > +-+----------+ > |0| 1 2 0 1 2| > +-+----------+ > (,0) + table i.3 > +-+-----+ > |+|0 1 2| > +-+-----+ > |0|0 1 2| > +-+-----+ > > These demonstrate that table requires vector arguments. > > This can force them to be so: > 0 (+ table)&, i.3 > +-+-----+ > |+|0 1 2| > +-+-----+ > |0|0 1 2| > +-+-----+ > 0 (+ table)&,~ i.3 > +-+-+ > |+|0| > +-+-+ > |0|0| > |1|1| > |2|2| > +-+-+ > > I wondered if I was correct in saying "vector", but I > think this shows they should be; if, for example, we > have a matrix argument, the results are not too > helpful:- > (i.3) (+ table)i.2 2 > +-+---+ > |+|0 1| > | |2 3| > +-+---+ > |0|0 1| > |1|2 3| > |2| | > | |1 2| > | |3 4| > | | | > | |2 3| > | |4 5| > +-+---+ > (i.3) (+ table)~i.2 2 > +---+-----+ > |+ |0 1 2| > | |0 0 0| > +---+-----+ > |0 1|0 1 2| > |2 3|1 2 3| > | | | > | |2 3 4| > | |3 4 5| > +---+-----+ > whereas > (i.3) (+ table)&, i.2 3 > +-+-----------+ > |+|0 1 2 3 4 5| > +-+-----------+ > |0|0 1 2 3 4 5| > |1|1 2 3 4 5 6| > |2|2 3 4 5 6 7| > +-+-----------+ > > Any help? > > Mike > > > On 09/10/2014 06:29, Linda Alvord wrote: > >> Try this instead: >> >> (i.3) +/ 0 >> (i.3) +/1 >> (i.3) +/1 2 >> (i.3) + table 0 >> (i.3) + table 1 >> (i.3) + table 1 2 >> >> >> Linda >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Alvord >> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 1:25 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Jbeta] tab;e vs / >> >> I expect them to agree. Is this how table should look? >> >> >> (i.3) +/ 0 >> >> 0 1 2 >> >> >> (i.3) +/1 >> >> 1 2 3 >> >> >> (i.3) +/1 2 >> >> 1 2 >> 2 3 >> 3 4 >> >> >> (i.3) + table 0 >> >> --T------┐ >> │+│0 │ >> +-+------+ >> │0│ 0 1 2│ >> │1│ │ >> │2│ │ >> L-+------- >> >> >> (i.3) + table 1 >> >> --T------┐ >> │+│1 │ >> +-+------+ >> │0│ 1 2 3│ >> │1│ │ >> │2│ │ >> L-+------- >> >> >> (i.3) + table 1 2 >> >> --T---┐ >> │+│1 2│ >> +-+---+ >> │0│1 2│ >> │1│2 3│ >> │2│3 4│ >> L-+---- >> >> >> >> Linda >> >> >> > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4037/8347 - Release Date: 10/08/14 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- (B=) <-----my sig Brian Schott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
