> Isn't this just a straightforward extension of an old result by Hartmanis? > (Not even Hartmanis remembers all the theorems Hartmanis proved, > but everyone else will assume you remember something they have forgotten.)
I must be too esoteric because I even remember who Hartmanis is :-) The essay writer missed the all-purpose, most devastating insult of all: It is not even wrong. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Joey K Tuttle <[email protected]> wrote: > Likely this comment should be in chat, but ... > > https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.criticize.html > > > On 2014/11/20 07:12 , Roger Hui wrote: > >> This violates universality. >>> >> Universality is not necessarily a good principle for language design. >> >> 1.2 3.4 $ 5.6 >> |domain error >> | 1.2 3.4 $5.6 >> >> 'abc' $ 3 4 5 >> |domain error >> | 'abc' $3 4 5 >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Sergey Kamenev <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 20.11.2014 09:05, Jan-Pieter Jacobs пишет: >>> >>> To give you a more direct reply: >>>> >>>> conjunctions, like & and @ work on either verbs or nouns. >>>> =: and =. are neither, they are a special category called copula. >>>> >>>> I hope this clarifies. >>>> >>>> It is clear that the assignment is an exception to the rule. >>> It is unclear why this was done. >>> This violates universality. >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
