(,._1 ^ +:)%1+i.8
1 1
0.5 _1
0.333333 _0.5j0.866025
0.25 0j1
0.2 0.309017j0.951057
0.166667 0.5j0.866025
0.142857 0.62349j0.781831
0.125 0.707107j0.707107
Den lørdag den 19. december 2020 09.35.10 CET skrev Ben Gorte
<bgo...@gmail.com>:
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
