It appears the obverse of u :. v is v :. u and not simply v . This explains the behavior Henry saw.
Kip Murray Sent from my iPad On Nov 4, 2012, at 9:33 PM, Marshall Lochbaum <mwlochb...@gmail.com> wrote: > My inclination is that it is correct in enforcing that the obverse of > the obverse is the original function. I'm open to good reasons why this > isn't always the case, but I think if you need to break this rule, then > what you're looking for probably isn't the obverse. Using &. in this > case will just complicate the code. > > Marshall > > On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 10:17:37PM -0500, Henry Rich wrote: >> Yes, that seems wrong. It should be >> >> i. :.+ >> >> shouldn't it? >> >> Henry Rich >> >> On 11/4/2012 10:15 PM, km wrote: >>> Henry, what do you make of >>> >>> i. :. (i. :. +) b. _1 >>> i. :.+ :.i. >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Kip Murray >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> On Nov 4, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Henry Rich <henryhr...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> i. :. (i. :. +) ^:_1 ^:_1 ]5 >>>> 0 1 2 3 4 >>>> >>>> The obverse of i. :. (i. :. +) should be (i. :. +), and >>>> the obverse of that should be + . I think. But it isn't. >>>> >>>> Henry Rich >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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
