Thanks Bill, Roger, and Kip for the assistance. In the Boggle article I see some additional difficulties. Some are around the he paragraph that reads: "Here are four successive items from pc: "
The noun referred to there (pc) is defined as a local noun within a larger explicit verb (paths). It would thus not actually be available for inspection in the manner shown in the article. (1) I propose changing the copula to pc=: within the definition so that using the array on its own makes sense. I think an end note may be appropriate on that change. The results of that execution don't fit the context indicated. The prior J sentence was '#3 paths 4' but the results indicate that the context (state) is due to '#4 paths 4' (2) I'm not sure how to correct this. It may be best to alter the prior example so that it sets that context. Or perhaps it would be better to add '#4 paths 4' as a second example. Late in the paper is "an incomplete table of the number of paths of given lengths in grids from size two to five." (3) A minor option: We can add the missing two values if we wish, and perhaps notes on execution speeds as of this later date. (I get 1110000 for #5 pathb 8 but an out-of-memory error for #5 pathb 9) I'm more concerned by the discrepancy of results between the two verbs that are intended to be identical, paths and pathb. The only input where I've seen matching output is 4 (#...@paths -: #...@pathb) 4 . This warns us that one of the two functions is inaccurate. Identifying that error and deciding how to correct in in the reprinting go beyond what I can do alone. (The most visible aspect of that discrepancy is that the result reported in the '#3 paths 4' example does not match the result shown for the same values in the table.) Plenty to think about here. Tracy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
