On 4/19/07, Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1 # 3
> > 0 # 1
> > 1 # 4
> > 0 # 1
> > 0 # 5
> > 0 # 9
>
> I think that this part of analysis is not needed,
why do you think that? I'm just going step by step and leaving out nothing.
Sure you are -- you are leaving out the definition of dyadic #
Here's a model of that definition:
compress=: 4 :0"1 _
x =&i.&# y
r=.0$y
for_item.y do.
for.i.item_index{x do.
r=.r,item end.end.
r
)
>when the verb # got arguments
> 1 0 1 0 0 0 and 3 1 4 1 5 9, how it come up with an answer is not related to
> frame/cell/agreement.
What substantiates this assertion?
The frame is a prefix of the shape of the result.
> Just think it as an black box and gives 3 4 as the result.
No thanks. Black boxes are great for systems processes like
psychology, but here we need nuts and bolts.
Call it a white box or grey box, then?
The point is that while the definition of the verb may also use
the frame/cell abstraction it is not required to do so.
# b. 0
_ 1 _
Could you tell me why you are bringing up rank 0? The verb rank is shown above.
When you went pairwise (1 # 3 etc.), you were implicitly using rank 0.
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
