1 2 e.~ 3 3 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 Your three expressions are equivalent to:
0 -.@+. 0 -.@+. 0 -.@+. 0 -.@+. 1 1 0 -.@:+. 0 -.@:+. 0 -.@:+. 0 -.@:+. 1 1 -. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 0 I see that you have already discovered this, but perhaps this perspective will be useful for someone else? Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Pascal Jasmin <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't understand the source of this issue: > > 1 2 -.@+./@:e.~ 3 3 3 4 1 > 1 > > 1 2 -.@:+./@:e.~ 3 3 3 4 1 > 1 > > 1 2 ([: -. +./@:e.~) 3 3 3 4 1 > 0 > > The 3rd one is the "correct" intention. But I thought these were > equivalent forms. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
