One interpretation ... Because of the 'imprint' in the dirt where the 3 piles of bricks lay ?
It is quite reasonable to assume an empty shape like this. Had the bricks been lying in an array of 4x5 bricks over the dirt, and stacked 3 high, then there would likewise be a 4x5 'imprint' where they had been lying. So the shape is 0 4 5, as in '0 high'. It's just another quite reasonable way of looking at it.../Rob On 8/10/07 5:01 PM, "Terrence Brannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/7/07, Devon McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I believe Ken used to explain it more finely by asking this question in >> small steps, e.g. >> Q: If you start with a 3x3 table, then remove one row, what is the new shape >> of the table? (A: 2x3) >> Q: If you remove another row from the result of the preceding step, what is >> the new shape? (A: 1x3) >> Q: If you remove another row from the result of the preceding step, what is >> the new shape? (A: 0x3) > > Let's take 9 bricks and lay them out 3x3. > > remove 3 bricks... (2x3) > remove 3 bricks ... (1x3) > remove 3 bricks ... nothing ... why would that be 0x3? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
