Yeah, and definitely more concise. And perhaps worth noting that the context for f implies f"0 but none of our variations achieve equivalence to f"0.
Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:31 AM 'robert therriault' via Programming <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > > I came up with > > g=: - |. &. #: > > but I still like the way that he approaches his explanation of > > f=. ] - [: #. [: |. #: > > Cheers, bob > > > On Aug 28, 2019, at 7:27 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:16 AM 'robert therriault' via Programming > > <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > >> I just became aware of the work that Pete Corey has been doing in using J > >> to take on a series of Numberphile investigations with J. This is the most > >> recent and I think is worth a look. > >> > >> http://www.petecorey.com/blog/2019/08/26/prime-parallelograms/ > > > > I look at his 'f' and I immediately want to rewrite it as: > > > > F=: - 2 #. |.@#: > > > > That might not meet his standards, but... actually, I am not quite > > sure how to describe what motivates me to want to phrase it this way. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
