The rank of +"_1 is infinite because the derived verb has to see the full ranks of its arguments to figure out what rank to use for the inner verb.
In other words, -"_1 in -"_1 i.3 3 has an effective rank of 1, but in -"_ i.3 it has an effective rank of 0. Since it can't know what rank to use until after it sees the nouns, its announced rank has to be infinite. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Louis de Forcrand <[email protected]> wrote: > +"0/~ i.3 > 0 1 2 > 1 2 3 > 2 3 4 > +"_1/~ i.3 > 0 2 4 > +"0 b.0 > 0 0 0 > +"_1 b.0 > _ _ _ > > I understand that this is dictionary compliant: > > "In general, each cell of x is applied to the entire of y . Thus x u/ y is > equivalent to x u"(lu,_) y where lu is the left rank of u ." > > +"_1 b.0 > _ _ _ > > So u"_1/ -: u"_ _ . Wouldn’t it be better though if u"_1/ -: u"_1 _ , > or if (u”_1 b.0) -: _1 _1 _1 (or any other negative rank)? > I ran into this while trying to use ,"_1/ , which I can replace by >@{@,&< , > but I still find this strange. > > Louis > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
