I'm afraid I cannot fully satisfy your curiosity. You are completely right concerning prettity, balance, and symmetry. Furthermore, my brackets surrounding the entire expression are superfluous indeed (like all pairs of brackets surrounding entire expressions?).
However, when it comes to avoiding unnecessary bracket pairs, your second pair is a candidate as well. At the same time I must admit that omitting it, for the sole purpose of avoiding unnecessary brackets, is testing one's luck (but I won). Greetings from Sydney, Ben On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 18:49, Roger Hui <rogerhui.can...@gmail.com> wrote: > > R =: ((cos , -@sin) ,: sin , cos) > > I am curious why the definition isn't > > (cos , -@sin) ,: (sin , cos) > > It seems prettier (more balanced, more symmetric). > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:56 AM Ben Gorte <bgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I would say: > > > > R =: ((cos , -@sin) ,: sin , cos) > > > > R 1r6p1 > > > > 0.866025 _0.5 > > > > 0.5 0.866025 > > > > > > Ben > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
