I'm more comfortable with you making the change. Though that's perhaps a hurdle I should get over.
Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:13 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > After sleeping on it, I see that you were right all along & I was > wrong. I was focusing on the polynomial (0), but that is not in > canonical form. The canonical form for the zero polynomial is (empty). > > I will remove the error-check, unless you want to do it yourself. > > Henry Rich > > On 1/4/2023 12:46 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > > Oh, yes... and I guess that's been a concern of yours all through this > > thread. > > > > If I understand the wikipedia treatment correctly, this is an > > ambiguity where different authors treat polynomial degree differently. > > > > And, I guess, negative infinity for the degree of zero polynomials > > would require a different implementation: > > > > pdegree=: {{(<:%*) +/ +./\. 0 ~: y}} > > pdegree 1 2 1 > > 2 > > pdegree 5 > > 0 > > pdegree 0 > > __ > > ... > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 11:35 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023, Raul Miller wrote: > >> > >>> I suppose you could go with a zero polynomial having negative infinite > >>> degree > >> That is what henry suggested. I agree that it doesn't change the answer to > >> the question of whether i.0 is a polynomial. > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
