Q.E.D. that this is a joke--listing Primer as a reference and having obvious fallacies. I just don't have time for this kind of jokes. Sign off of the topic. Good luck.
----- Original Message ---- > From: Don Watson <[email protected]> > > Hi Oleg, > > You state: > > > We need to be careful about using the term "tacit" appropriately. Does it > > only mean the use of "@", and S thus attempts to replace it with " "? > > However tacit is much more than that: the whole repertoire of > > adverbs and conjunctions, and the forks and hooks--that is tacit. > > The order of complexity can hardly be denied. One has to grasp the total > > entirety of tacit programming in J. It is not just about one conjunction > > "@", > > which has its proper place and meaning and cannot be just thrown away. > > How does S represent the rank difference between "@" and "@:" ? > > With "@" being space, how is it going to be related with the other > > facets of function composition "&", "&.", "&:" and "&.:" ? > > As I noted in the reply I recently made to Ric, I am interpreting > tacit J to mean what is defined in the Primer: "In a > tacit definition the arguments are not named and do not appear > explicitly in the definition. The arguments are referred to implicitly > by the syntactic requirements of the definition." > > I included my revised tacit expression: (%:(+/*:] -(+/)%#)%<:#) > and showed, I believe, that it fulfilled the requirements of this > definition for tacit programming. > > If : > > * I can convert any explicit J expression to my revised tacit J. > * My revised tacit J fulfills the requirements defined for a tacit J. > * I can convert this revised tacit J back to the explicit J expression. > > Then I must have a form of tacit J. > > When I did Euclidean Geometry many years ago, we used to > say: Q.E.D. > > All due to Ric !!! > > Don > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
