Another way to do the same thing, but not a solution, is this expression:
3 (*(*(***)*)*) 4 NB. Funny way 429981696 Anyone can find a nice recursive way to write it? My best shot: 12 1:`([ * [ $: [: <: ])@.([: * ]) 8 NB. Complicated way 429981696 It's a recursion? * $: * /Erling On 2014-07-19 20:48, Raul Miller wrote:
Probably, yes. And I was sort of provocative by not going with the implied limitations. But there's can be quite a bit of ambiguity when key issues are implied, rather than addressed or illustrated. This is a problem I face myself, quite often: How can I be aware of important issues which matter to other people, when I am incredibly focused on my own point of view? That said: (1) Erling Hellenäs had already posted some solutions which satisfied the "one verb" constraint using * as that verb (at the time I made my 42981696"_ post). (2) Realizing that derived verbs are J verbs is an important lesson which beginning J programmers often overlook. You can't really be a good J progammer if you don't understand the grammar of the language. And it's not that the grammar is hard to understand - it's extremely simple. But it's so simple that it's also easy to sometimes get by with false generalizations about its rules. This leads into the almost inevitable "no that's not what I meant" sorts of social issues. So yes, my post was - in a sense - somewhat bratty. But I felt that the underlying issue was important enough to raise the point and stick with it at least until someone called me on it. Thanks,
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
