Hi, Randy. Are the innermost pair of digits the same when comparing 3,456.00 and 26,445,909? Is it simpler to determine this by considering the textual strings of these representations, or by considering the positional digits of numerals? Textual (formatting) details are not relevant to the sort of problem under discussion here. (They are relevant for other practical purposes.)
I've used American style, but other styling techniques raise the same sort of complications. Numerals seem much simpler to me because there is a clear and limited amount of complexity. -- Tracy On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Randy MacDonald <ram...@nbnet.nb.ca>wrote: > Hello Tracy; > > I cannot agree that #. and #: are simpler than ": and ". but I suspect > that's just me. > > ... > ra > > > On 12/20/2010 6:15 PM, Tracy Harms wrote: > > Randy wrote: > > > > "As far as the 'why convert to and from strings?' question goes, the > > 'first digit of a number' concept _requires_ seeing numbers as strings." > > > > That does not fit my understanding. It requires seeing numbers by way of > > numerals, and it requires seeing those numerals as comprised of digits, > but > > it seems to me that "string" is a different sort of abstraction. > > > > A "string" seems to me to suggest concerns that have to do with > considering > > the characters without including any numeric qualities. The two concepts > are > > similar, but I think I see enough difference to be happier with treating > > them as digits (naturally manipulated with #. and #:) > > > > -- > > Tracy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
