Yes, basically, except there's no recursion here.
The dyadic definition of . does not use the monadic definition.
--
Raul
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Rudolf Sykora <rudolf.syk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So in the dictionary we see
>
> DET=: 2 : 'v/@,`({."1 u . v $:@minors)@.(0<{:@$) @ ,. "2'
> minors=: }."1 @ (1&([\.))
>
> which is as far as I can tell two definitions, for DET and minors.
>
> Is the dictionary meant to say that this DET is used in place
> of . when . is used monadically? (And then that DET is defined
> in terms of dyadic . , possibly called recursively?
>
> Thanks
> Ruda
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
