On Wed, 29 Sep 2021, Henry Rich wrote:
This is not a fork.
Damn. You are right. I have convinced myself that there is no (sensible) definition of ].. and [.. that makes f ].. g [.. h a fork in the dyadic case. (Monadic is doable, but where's the fun in that?)
Your proposal for (C0 C1 C2) -> conj ((u C0 v) (u C1 v) (u C2 v))
I have tried very hard to avoid proposing that--it seems I need to try harder!
What I want is not to change the behaviour of C0C1C2; what I want is, _given_ some C0, C1, and C2, to be able to arrange them into some tacit conjunction such that u conj v -> ((u C0 v) (u C1 v) (u C2 v)). But that arrangement should not be C0C1C2, it should be something else.
I had hoped it could be C0 ].. C1 [.. C2, but it seems there is no way to make that work. And I am out of ideas.
-E ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
