This was your question:
> So is the filling of these two results done in the verb and the style of
> filling peculiar
> to Shape?
My answer gave a counterexample. That is, it showed that you could get that
style of filling without using $ . Hence the answer is no. QED.
Now, you could ask "is this style of filling peculiar to $ and ,: ?" .
But that's a different question. And, if you'd done the experiment I
suggested:
a =. 1 2 $ 9
b =. 3 4 $ 9
> a;b
9 9 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
Then you could ask "is this style of filling peculiar to $ and ,: and
> ?" But, by this point, something might've occured to you, and you might
not have had to ask the question in the first place. If not, a few more
trials might've convinced you.
If that wasn't enough, you could say "well, I have the complete
specification of $ and I have the complete specification of ,: . Now, I
know they both fill this way; is there any language shared by their
specifications that indicate this behavior is peculiar to them?"
If you could not find such shared language, you must conclude that a more
general rule is being applied. If you found candidate shared language, you
might then try the intersection with the specification of > , and so on.
There are a finite number of primitives.
In fact, there are a finite number of words in the DoJ.
-Dan
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Where-does-rationing-and-fill-occur-for-this-partially-infinite-dyad--tf4882402s24193.html#a13974503
Sent from the J General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
