On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > 0. The description "an array is a list of its items" was not in the > Dictionary IIRC; when I wrote JfC I thought I was making up the > terminology (but I see it's in LJ too, so I don't claim credit). But > note that you have to say 'non-atomic array' in that description if you > insist on using 'array' to mean 'noun'. > > 1. "An item, after all, is an array one dimension fewer than the > argument"... again, you have to make an exception to make the statement > true - or change the terminology.
These conflicts only exist if you insist that all arrays are lists of items. Personally, I would make no such claim. I will grant, however the for the quip "An item, after all, is an array one dimension fewer than the argument" to be complete, I would have to include the 0 >. aspect either in my reference to "fewer" or in its "definition". > 2. As I defined it for my purposes, 'list' always means a rank-1 array, > and 'list of x' might have a higher rank. Ok. > 3. We should be careful to call rank-2 arrays 'tables', and reserve > 'matrix' for those tables that follow the rules of matrix operations. Or we can call them rank 2 arrays. Other names are also possible. > 4. I like 'cube' (and 'n-cube', perhaps, for ranks higher than 3?). And I think cube should imply 1 = ~. $ noun. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
