I was influenced by the discussion in thread Peculiarity of Link, and opted for the uniformity of having every set satisfy 0 < L. . I decided to see where that decision would take me.
In private correspondence it has been suggested that elements be required to satisfy [: -. 0 e. $ -- that is, no empty array may be an element. What do you think? Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Kip Murray<[email protected]> wrote: >> As it happens, set box is the empty set. It is a good thing that _nothing_ >> is >> an element of set box . Not allowing i.0 0 to be an element is the price I >> pay >> for having an empty set in this model of finite set theory. > > I do not understand why you do not use empty sequence > to represent empty set. > > isset=: (-: /:~) *. (-: ~.@,) *. -:&'' +. 0 < L. > > seems simple enough. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
