dly wrote: > Sorry, I did not mean you were not clear to each other. Just that a > few comments can help follow. > > Like: > > The connection between ¸ and arctan is that arctan (1) is ¸ divided by 4 > > arctan=:_3&o. > > arctan 1 > 0.785398 > > > 1p1%4 > 0.785398 >
Donna: We are not writing high-school essays here. You (and anyone who knows what arctan is) can easily supply these sorts of examples. Plus it is covered under > For real y, arctan y is the angle between _1r2p1 and 1r2p1 whose >> tangent >> is y. There are many other connections between arctan and 1p1. It's kind of pointless to say "you should have said <this>". I didn't. If you want to say something, say it. Maybe I will see the error of my ways. In this case I don't. The point of my post was to draw out the distinction between arctan and its 2-argument form, normally called something like atan2, and implemented in J as 12&o., with the additional complication that J puts two real arguments into a complex number. I believe I succeeded. If you have a better explanation, please post it. But simply complaining that I should have said something different does not get us anywhere. Best wishes, John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
