Dan Bron wrote: > James C Field wrote: > >> [KEI] spent the rest of his life seeking to improve on [APL] with J. >> Are we in a "string theory" battle with the edge conditions of J? >> > > Have you seen my parlor trick? Here's what I asked Don Watson in the context > of J as an improvement over SMN: > > >> What is the result of the following sentence? >> +/ 2 ^ - i. _ >> >> If you want to ask the same question via email, using your preferred 2D >> notation, how do you do it? >> > > In the context of J as an improvement over APL, I'll pose you a similar > challenge: If you want to ask the same question via email, > using your preferred symbolic notation, how would you do it? > > -Dan > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > I posted my remark to provoke reaction. Equal and opposite would be appropriate.
Your parlour trick exposes an inadequacy in J. String theory (really a model) is untestable. Jim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
