On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > notation (i.e. the digit meaning 33, as in 16b1a2b3c9x). Second, We > also use x to represent Euler's number in exponential notation, as in > 1x1, > and sometimes the interpreter gets confused about whether you mean > extended precision or exponential numbers (e.g. 1x1 1x an > "ill-formed number") . > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2004-April/016876.html > > [2] There are some corner cases where extended-precision calculations must > fall back to floating point.
All of which makes me wonder what you expect for 1x1 1x. Consider: 1x1 2.71828 1x 1 Logically speaking, I think I would expect 1x1 1x to give me an exact representation of ^1 0. But that's irrational. Thoughts? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
