Hi R.E., Isn't that like with the apples and pears? You can say they're not equal.
Greetings from Sydney, Ben. On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:45 AM R.E. Boss <r.e.b...@outlook.com> wrote: > For comparisons we have equal (=) and not equal (~:) and less than (<) and > larger than (>). > I ignore min (<.) and max (>.) and less or equal (<:) and larger or equal > (>:) since I consider them as direct derivatives of < and >. Also match > (-:) is ignored. > > All four (=, ~:, < and >) have dyadic rank 0, but I am more interested in > their differences, which, to me, are rather annoying. > We get > =/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > 0 0 1 1 > for obvious reasons, and likewise with the 3 other verbs. > > But why is the next behavior different? > =/;/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > 0 > ~:/;/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > 1 > </;/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > |domain error > | </;/2 4?.@$2 > >/;/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > |domain error > | >/;/2 4?.@$2 > > Because we can compare the boxed items, as is shown by > /: ;/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > 0 1 > > Needless to say also the other comparisons go wrong > <./;/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > |domain error > | <./;/2 4?.@$2 > <:/;/2 4 ?.@$ 2 > |domain error > | <:/;/2 4?.@$2 > > Of course I can circumvent the errors in one way or the other, e.g. by > using /:, but usually that costs quite some performance. > Is there any time soon that the techniques which are used to compare boxed > atoms, like used in /: , will be used for < and > too? > > > R.E Boss > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
