I should probably have pointed out that this is a general problem related to the ambiguous interpretation of x in numerical constants, not only constrained to those which contain both exponential notation.
For example, 1e1 1x |ill-formed number 1j0 1x |ill-formed number Etc. -Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 24, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
