For example: are the dyadic expressions (-&*:) and (-*+) equivalent? They appear to be. Are there certain conditions where they are equivalent and cases where they are not?
3(-&*:)2 4 7 5 _7 _40 3(-*+)2 4 7 5 _7 _40 Looks pretty good. How about: 2 3(-&*:)/4 5 6 _12 _21 _32 _7 _16 _27 2 3(-*+)/4 5 6 |length error | 2 3 (-*+)/4 5 6 Looks like a problem here. This fixes it. 2 3(-*+)"0/4 5 6 _12 _21 _32 _7 _16 _27 But I should be able to prove that this last expression is equivalent to the first. Or prove that it is not. Without having to think of every possible case. On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Don Guinn<[email protected]> wrote: > > I prefer to use p. as well. But when I saw the original forum > > question it got me to remembering trying to do proofs tacitly. > > I should have tested the statements using J. But one should be > > able to do this without such a crutch. > > What is the advantage of not using illustrative > examples? > > -- > 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
