I'm happy not to go there and to have an explanation for my puzzle. Implementing a trivial work-around is a small price to pay if the change improves simplicity or consistency.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't go there. > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > J implements, arguably, at least six complex infinities: > > > > ,.(-.~[:,j./~)__ 0 _ > > __j__ > > __j_ > > 0j__ > > 0j_ > > _j__ > > _j_ > > > > (And since the zeros might be replaced with any real number we could > > argue that there are quite a lot more.) > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > (+ *:) ^:20~1j1 > > > |NaN error > > > | (+*:)^:20~1j1 > > > (+ *:) ^:20~2 > > > _ > > > > > > > > > I think that earlier versions of J returned infinity on overflow > instead > > of NaN. Current version of J retained that convention only for real > numbers > > and returns NaN on complex overflows. > > > > > > This is even more surprising since there seems to be "complex infinity" > > which apparently goes unutilized: > > > > > > (+ *:) :: _: ^:20~1j1 > > > _j_ > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
