On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Brian Schott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found something fishy by trimming down l to my l1 > I see there is no term that equals 0. Doesn't that seem > incorrect? > > l1=: - %"1 -/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3.5 l X > _0.00488281 0.0410156 _0.170898 0.683594 0.512695 _0.0683594 0.00683594
Note that you did not use l1 here -- you used l, which I had defined as l=: - */@(-.&__ 0 _)@:%"1 -/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (and X was i.7). The bit you removed was */@(-.&__ 0 _), which removes the number which came from the diagonal of the matrix which l1 would give you, and then finds their product (these diagonal values will always have had 0 in their denominator and would be __ if l1's left argument is less than the corresponding value from l1's right argument, 0 if l1's left argument equals the corresponding value from l1's right argument, or _ if l1's left argument exceeds the corresponding value from l1's right argument). I would expect a 0 on the diagonal only when l1's left argument appears in l1's right argument. FYI, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
