Dan Bron wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Why would you provide different inputs to get the same outputs and consider
that as proof that the internal processing is the same?
2 + 2 = 4
1 * 4 = 4
Would you consider the above proof that + and * processing integers in the
same style? (grin)
I think your response targeted a failure of my email. Instead of keeping the
text of the email focused on the subject, I asked a question that you
mis-interpreted. Instead I should have made sure that the subject of my
email:
Re: Where does *rationing* _and_ *fill* occur for this partially
infinite dyad?
was covered by asking pointed questions based on it.
Taking this subject piece by piece:
* Did you say *where* the filling occurs (i.e., in the verb's code or in the
general dyad processing code)? No. But perhaps I did not ask as clearly as I
should have.
* Did you say anything about rationing of the noun? No - in fact you
couldn't because you used a verb with infinite rank for both arguments and
no rationing occurred. The subject was specific and limited to partially
infinite dyads. Again, this might be my failure for not re-stating this
stipulation within the email body.
Dan Bron wrote:
>
>
> In fact, there are a finite number of words in the DoJ.
>
>
Yes, and they all say _what_ the verb does with absolutely no info on
_where_ the result is taking place.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Where-does-rationing-and-fill-occur-for-this-partially-infinite-dyad--tf4882402s24193.html#a13976914
Sent from the J General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
