> I guess the words are intuitively obvious. To me, perhaps, Don, and to you. But I bet we can find smart people for whom they aren't.
I remember from computer literature in the 70s, "operator" meant the person working the controls. 20 years before, if the controls were on a hand-calculator, such people were called "computers". To most people however, the Operator was the person you heard when you picked up the telephone. Then I met the Hamiltonian Operator, the Heaviside Operator, the Differential Operator... though in the computer literature of the time, + - / * in arithmetic expressions were also called operators. It's a pity there's no ISO standard for terminology common to all programming languages. Few vendors have seen it in their interest to let such a standardisation activity take place. But many programmers know more than one language (I've just tried counting those I've used seriously, and I reach at least 20, omitting dialects and Assemblers). You recognise words like "function" which turn up in different languages with "kind-of" the same meaning -- or "operator", where the usages are anything but the same, but generally meaning "like-a-function-but-not-a-function". Soon, if you don't think about it too hard, the meaning becomes intuitively obvious. Living in both the USA and England, I know a lot of words that are intuitively obvious -- and the residents of each country aren't even aware they mean different things. I tell British people that in America cars drive on the pavement -- and they shudder, and nod: it's just like they've always suspected. So can I suggest: a computer term is "intuitively obvious" if I'm convinced it means what I think it means. (Doubtless you'll have your own definition.) Ian On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Using English parts of speech may be a little confusing to describe J, but > using the words "function" and "operator" in math books is really confusing. > I have searched beginning math books for decent definitions for these words, > but most don't even define them. They just start using them. Those that do > have definitions, the definitions are vague. > > I guess the words are intuitively obvious. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
