I prefer to think of kp3's implementation as ambivalent 13 :',/,./"3*/y' [: ,/ [: ,./"3 */
You could think of this as: ([: ,/ [: ,./"3 */) : ([: ,/ [: ,./"3 */) The implementation on the left side of the separating : is monadic, the implementation on the right side is dyadic. There are other ways of expressing this duality also. For example: (i.3 3) ([: ,/ : (,/) [: ,./"3 :(,./"3) */ :(*/)) i. 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 3 4 6 0 3 0 4 0 5 6 9 8 12 10 15 0 6 0 7 0 8 12 18 14 21 16 24 of, for example: (i.3 3) ([: , :,/ [: ,. :,./"3 * :*/) i. 2 2 Basically, a verb is really a reference to a pair of definitions (monadic verb definition and dyadic verb definition) and that holds true for both primitive and derived verbs. This is a bit of a subtle point, since to reason about it we need to draw a distinction between verbs-as-symbols and verbs-as-their-implementations. Does that make sense? Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Brian Schott <[email protected]>wrote: > Linda, > > Yes. That is surprising. I discovered why. Although kp3 is expressed as a > monad, if you look at the result you will see its tacit result is dyadic. > > That is surprising, and interesting. > > > > > -- > (B=) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
