On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Boyko Bantchev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 April 2011 01:00, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> I cannot imagine any interpretations which conflict with my statement >> which do not also conflict with the dictionary entry. >> >> But perhaps you can show me one? > > You said: > >> Unless 0=#y (which is explicitly treated), u/y necessarily has _1+#y >> instances of u. This follows immediately from the first sentence at >> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d420.htm > > and the sentence you are referring to is > `u/y applies the dyad u between the items of y'. > > If you choose to maintain that, somehow, > `0 applications between 1 elements' > has definite meaning, then it seems to me that, to be self-consistent, > you should go all the way through and also consider > `-1 applications between 0 elements' > (in which case you would also have to explain how -1 applications > of a verb yield that verb's neutral element).
Why should i "go all the way through", when the dictionary explicitly treats the empty case as anomalous? > I prefer to stick by common sense and consider the DoJ statement > as applying only to 1<#y, since only then the word `between' is > meaningful. Thus, both 1=#y and 0=#y require a separate explanation. The dictionary says that u/y inserts u between the items of y. For the case where 1=#y there is only one item of y and so there is no place to insert u, so u is inserted nowhere. That, to me, is common sense, and the implementation of J seems to back me up on this issue. I am not seeing any contradictions here. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
