There may be there is some confusion here.
What Dan is saying is that the following two lines give the same result (which
they do for me):
(1&o. * 2&o.) d. 1 ] 0.4
0.69670671
sincos d. 1 ] 0.4
0.69670671
In other words the derivative of sincos is correctly taken when sincos d. 1 is
applied to arguments, it just doesn't "show" the algebraic solution when
entered without arguments. If you want that then use f. as Raul suggests.
> From: Alex Gian
> Sent: Saturday, 20 November 2010 11:33
>
> Not on any of the J systems I've tried! (Including Linux, Win32(Wine),
> or Windows Mobile / PPC)
>
> I thought it was just a weird peculiarity of J, obviously d. "should"
> work on a user defined verb if it can.
>
> I tried with other verbs, like p. too, just in case o. was causing the
> problem. Nope, once you define a verb in terms of its primitives d.
> don't work no more. Just FYI
>
> On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 21:58 +0000, Dan Bron wrote:
> > Raul is right, but just to be clear, when applied to arguments, sincos d. 1
> and sincos f. d. 1 will have identical results*. Just type into the IJX
> without arguments, the latter looks different from the former for exactly the
> same reason sincos f. looks different from sincos .
> >
> > That is, f. explicitly requests its argument be exploded into its components
> (but again, the argument to f. applied to its own arguments will havbe the
> same results, exploded or not - that's the point of naming stuff -
> subordinating detail / hiding complexity).
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > * I haven't tested this, but if it isn't true, that's an interpreter bug.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
