Hi Pascal, Not arguing against the idea but they are only functionally the same for monadic.
4 *: 4 |domain error | 4 *:4 4 +: 4 |domain error | 4 +:4 5 *: 4 |domain error | 5 *:4 5 *~ 4 20 5 +: 4 |domain error | 5 +:4 5 +~ 4 9 Cheers, bob On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:59 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > kindof the same as your idea > > *~(^:3) 12 > 429981696 > > completely off topic, but would it be a good or bad thing if, assuming there > was a shortage of ascii mnemonics, and some need, if monadic +: and *: were > redefined considering that +~ and *~ do the same? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Erling Hellenäs <erl...@erlinghellenas.se> > To: programm...@jsoftware.com > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 3:05:03 PM > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] High Speed Train Challenge > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
