(Note that the subject of the original message contained a typo <. for >., though the text was correct.)
I don't see the logic. x+_. is _. because if you don't know what _. is, you don't know the result, even if x is _ . But with _ >. _. you know the result, no matter what _. is: _ >. x is _ for all x. So _ would be a reasonable answer. You said earlier that _. <: _ should produce 1, which seems to conform to my argument above. If _. is recognized as less-or-equal _, I think it needs to follow that _. >. _ is _ . The case that got me into this _. mess was 1 2 3 _ I. _. where I had a list that I thought I had terminated with a high value, but I found that _. is higher yet. It would simplify analysis and description if _. were consistently recognized as not being bigger than _ . Henry Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Hui > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:45 PM > To: Beta forum > Subject: Re: [Jbeta] Another incompatibility: _ <. _. > > The answer should be _. for the same reason that x+_. should be _. . > That is, for all numeric atoms x, _. should be the answer for > > x + _. > x >. _. > x <. _. > _. + x > _. >. x > _. <. x > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Henry Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:55 > Subject: [Jbeta] Another incompatibility: _ <. _. > To: 'Beta forum' <[email protected]> > > > I also just got bit by > > > > _ >. _. > > _. > > > > This gave _ in 601. And in 602, > > > > _. >. _ > > _ > > > > > > I think both results should be _ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
