"Would you consider Tfixed`:0 as being U?" No. Maybe the following can clarify what I tried to convey:
u=. 2 2 $ +/ ; |: ; |. ; -/ . * v=. T(4 :'<y`:0 x'"_ 0&) w=. tf T u 2 2 $ +/ ; |: ; |. ; -/ .* v 4 : '<y`:0 x'"_ 0&(2 2$(<(<,'/'),<,<,'+'),(<'|:'),(<'|.'),<(<,'.'),<(<(<,'/'),<,<,'-'),<,'*') w 2 2 $ +/ ; |: ; |. ; -/ .* On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > So far no solution is transforming T into U and perhaps emulating U is > what > > was meant, as in > > Raul's solution T(4 :'<y`:0 x'"_ 0&). > > I don't understand what you mean here. > > How was my solution "not U"? > > What is the difference between being U and emulating U? > > I think the distinction you are drawing here has to do with > replicating some functionality in each cell of the table of verbs, but > if that's the case I don't know why it's important. Those approaches > take more code to implement and also result in a table with different > cells. > > Put differently, `:0 was the probably the right approach - the problem > was that the verbs were not conformable. Fixing the "problem" means > changing the verbs or changing the environment in which they operate. > If you're going to change the verbs, I'd change them from the start, > or I'd use something like: > > T =: 2 2 $ +/`|:`|.`(-/ .*) > Tfixed=: 3 :'{.''''`(<@(y`:0))'"0 T > > Tfixed`:0 i. 2 2 > +---+---+ > |2 4|0 2| > | |1 3| > +---+---+ > |2 3|_2 | > |0 1| | > +---+---+ > > So... > > Would you consider Tfixed`:0 as being U? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
