Does this mean that hooks and forks are excluded from explicit definitions?
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]>wrote: > Kip, Your response made me compare the use of 3 and 13. > > f=: 13 :'%+/%y' > g=: 3 :'%+/%y' > > f 2 4 > 1.33333 > g 2 4 > 1.33333 > > f > [: % [: +/ % > g > 3 : '%+/%y' > > > What I like best are the trees when I'm lost in the forest! > > 5!:4 <'f' > -- [: > +- % > --+ -- [: > L----+- / --- + > L- % > > 5!:4 <'g' > -- 3 > -- : -+- ,:'%+/%y' > > > Linda > > > ----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of km > ent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] another example of 'under' > > Why don't you just do > > pr =: 3 : '%+/%y' > > ? > > Kip Murray > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Keith Park <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To find the value of resistors in parallel one takes the reciprocal of > > the sum of the reciprocals. So I would like to write a verb to do > > just that. *pr=:%+/% > > *But that, of course, doesn't work. So my question is "is there a > > way of avoiding unwanted hooks and forks?" > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith Park <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Thanks! > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Raul Miller > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>> In the sentence: > >>> > >>> +/&.:% resistances > >>> > >>> the phrase +/&.:% is a verb which finds parallel resistance. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Raul > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Keith Park <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> To parallel a number of resistors the expression * %+/% *does the > job. > >>>> How could one make an equivalent verb? > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Boyko Bantchev > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 26 September 2012 15:39, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> +&.% is the operation for combining parallel electrical > >>>>>> +resistances, > >>>>> another > >>>>>> example that immediately demonstrates the associativity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Indeed! I had the vague feeling I know this formula from > >>>>> somewhere else but it evaded me where. > >>>>> > >>>>>> (w:h) ................. > >>>>> > >>>>> The above is a mistake, of course. I should have said h:w, or > >>>>> place rectangles one above the other instead. > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> ---- For information about J forums see > >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> --- For information about J forums see > >>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> -- For information about J forums see > >>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
