Perhaps I should have put the expressions in parens fully or given them names. The tacit expressions I am concerned about are (-&*:) and ((-*+)"0) .
Forks ignore rank where the & preserves rank. So the rank specification would be redundant. I would suspect that adding the redundant "0 would be a step in the proof. On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Viktor Cerovski <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Don Guinn-3 wrote: > > > > 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?[...] > > > At first glance they should not to be equivalent since these two verbs > have different ranks, 0 and _, respectively . > > (-&:*:) and (-*+) have same, infinite, ranks: > > 2 3(-&:*:)/4 5 6 > |length error > | 2 3 (-&:*:)/4 5 6 > > 2 3(-&:*:)"0/4 5 6 > _12 _21 _32 > _7 _16 _27 > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Jprogramming--tacit-definition-tp25047256s24193p25050526.html > Sent from the J Chat mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
