Perhaps I was not clear: Joey was quite clear that it _was_ not clear;
and that, as a result, I was agreeing wih Joey that the circustances should
either be noted in the Dictionary, or pehaps,
a slight change in the functors involved:
to give Mathematically precisely correct results
might be in order.
And, since the situation as not clear to you, and others,
including me:
that all of this might clearly need to be cleared up.
I apologize*** that this was clearly unclear in my response.
Perhaps almost as clearly unclear as the J situation was.
Cheers.
*** I left off the leading 'a' anf spellcheck suggested "prologize" as an
alternative. The net has humor of itself.
PS: Hopefully, there is no lack of clarity as to whcih author your response
was intended towards (....) nor in response which one(s) mine is to:
not you in specific; but to the Forum in general****
**** Just to be completely clear; I am not _excluding_ you, just _includibg_
everyone else besides;
klar?
CHeers.
On 6/24/06, Randy MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To the author of that message, perhaps it was clear. That it wasn't clear
to
Joey means, to me at least, that it wasn't clear to others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|\ | |If you cannot describe what you are doing
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 þas a process, you don't know what you're doing.
Sapere Aude | - W. E. Deming
Natural Born APL'er | Demo website: http://156.34.78.239/
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-
----- Original Message -----
From: "R&S HUI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General forum" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] significant digits
> It seems clear what I disagree with.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joey K Tuttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Saturday, June 24, 2006 5:53 pm
> Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] significant digits
>
>> Better to fix it? Seems to me the following should produce
>> the same results ...
>>
>> '0' 8!:2 ] 365365365365365365x^2
>> 133491850208566945040100911382265856
>> 0": 365365365365365365^2
>> 133491850208566926593356837672714240
>>
>> You disagree with that?
>>
>>
>> At 17:10 -0700 2006/06/24, R&S HUI wrote:
>> > > IMHO, it would be a good idea to include a comment ...
>> >
>> >I disagree.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: Joey K Tuttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > >
>> >> IMHO, it would be a good idea to include a comment in the 8!:
>> >> documentation page that expands on the description - "y is
>> >> usually an array of real numbers." to the effect that extended
>> > > integers may cause erratic results.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
--
Roy A. Crabtree
UNC '76 gaa.lifer#11086
Room 207 Studio Plus
123 East McCullough Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262-3306
336-340-1304 (office/home/cell/vmail)
704-510-0108x7404 (voicemail residence)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc
--
(c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST
(Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity
All Rights/Reserved Explicitly
Public Reuse Only
Profits Always Safe Traded
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
