In your first case: o. 4 %~ i.5 0 0.785398 1.5708 2.35619 3.14159 o. (i.5)%4 NB. Same as above ... 0 0.785398 1.5708 2.35619 3.14159 (o.i.5)%4 NB. Same again ... 0 0.785398 1.5708 2.35619 3.14159
So the numerator is (o. * i. 5) and the denominator is 4 In your last case: 4p1 %~ (i.5) 0 0.0795775 0.159155 0.238732 0.31831 (i.5) % 4p1 NB. Same as above ... 0 0.0795775 0.159155 0.238732 0.31831 (i.5) % o.4 NB. Same again ... 0 0.0795775 0.159155 0.238732 0.31831 So the numerator is (i.5) and the denominator is o.4 i.e. you have inadvertently moved the o. (or 4p1) to the denominator, likely without realising Remember in your first example that o. is a verb, whose argument is the result of (4 %~ i.5). HTH …/Rob > On 21 Apr 2016, at 6:28 PM, Martin Kreuzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all - > > Somewhere along the way I picked up this small expression: > o.4 %~ i.5 > 0 0.785398 1.5708 2.35619 3.14159 > > Just for the fun of it, I tried building it from the ground up like this: > (i.5) % 4 > 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 > 1p1 * (i.5) % 4 > 0 0.785398 1.5708 2.35619 3.14159 > 1p1 * 4 %~ (i.5) > 0 0.785398 1.5708 2.35619 3.14159 > > I then bravely thought this would work as well > 4p1 %~ (i.5) > 0 0.0795775 0.159155 0.238732 0.31831 > (4p1) %~ (i.5) > 0 0.0795775 0.159155 0.238732 0.31831 > but -unfortunately- it didn't ... > > The "odot" page of NuVoc has given me the impression that the two should be > interchangeable (despite maybe performance issues). > > Spoilers: A newbie at work. > -M > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
