Henry wrote: > If you pick one possible result, that's pretty arbitrary and > not interesting to me.
I wrote: > Do you object to %: then? How about | ? And ^. ? .... John wrote: > The problem is that for a general polynomial, there is no obviously > useful systematic restriction. I'll buy that. What I don't buy is this philosophy that it's better to have no inverse than an imperfect inverse. We've had this discussion numerous times. No one complains about (e.g.) ;:^:_1 even though ;: is not 1-to-1. If we restrict the range of p.^:_1 it may not systematic useful, but an error is systematically useless. Further, the cost is not so great: the change (like all new inverses) is completely backwards compatible. -Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
