On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, km <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger provides a motivation for capped fork in his Wiki essay Capped Fork: > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Capped%20Fork?highlight=%28completeness%29 > > He says, "When [: g h is interpreted as g@:h , it means that > "everything" can be expressed as a fork (ordinary and capped)." > > However, it appears that [: g h is not always interpreted as g@:h. Two simple examples:
10 (6!:2) '([:-.-:)"0/ ?2 100000$10' 0.02305822671099 10 (6!:2) '(-.@:-:)"0/ ?2 100000$10' 0.003745674810987 (7!:2) '([:+/,) i.2#1000' 12584512 (7!:2) '(+/@:,) i.2#1000' 8390272 I wonder if there is a reason for that, i.e., should they not always be interpreted the same because they are not according to the dictionary? Or if it was an oversight. I hope this teaser will make you eager to see his essay! > > --Kip Murray > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A teaser cap is the exception to the > >> > >> rule, [: is the only verb that is not invoked when is the leading verb > in a > >> fork, for no compelling reason (again, from my viewpoint). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
