If ? had the rank of ?. , it would still behave as ? , if these examples are relevant.
?."? 2 10 $100 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 ?"?. 2 10 $100 54 83 5 96 96 31 83 59 79 54 81 80 49 68 32 12 92 66 50 92 But on a similar, but different, issue: I have long sought in J a *portable* RNG (although my research has veered away from this pursuit). By portable, I mean one that can produce the same stream of numbers on any modern computer, regardless of the word length. For an extreme example, on my iPad, the first example produces all 46's, not 94's. The links below discuss this issue. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2347988 http://degiorgi.math.hr/aaa_sem/Rand_Gen/p132-schrage.pdf On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ben Gorte - CITG <[email protected]>wrote: > I see... > > In fact your question is why monadic ? has rank 0, instead of _ , which > would make it like behave more like ?. concerning b. 0 . > > We agree that a rank 0 ?. wouldn't be useful: > > querydot =: (?.)"0 > querydot (10#100) > 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 > querydot"1 (10#100) > 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 > > Is your question (if it is) not the same sort of question as why +, -, * > etc. have rank 0? > Or: what's wrong with: > > 11 12 13 +"_ i.3 4 > 11 12 13 14 > 16 17 18 19 > 21 22 23 24 > > (I don't kow) > > Ben > -- (B=) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
