Define a verb that works for a scalar, then applying it as rank zero. ([:<[:/:10&#.^:_1)"0 a,b +---------+---------+ |1 0 2 3 4|4 2 3 1 0| +---------+---------+
2011/10/26 Linda Alvord <[email protected]> > Can anyone write a tacit version of l without using &. ? > The definition m works but I'm not sure that it makes the thought process > any more clear. > > > u&.v is u&.:v"({. v b. 0) > > a=: 10123 > b=: 32110 > > l=:([:/: ":)&.> > l a,b > ----------T---------┐ > │1 0 2 3 4│4 2 3 1 0│ > L---------+---------- > > m=:([:/:":)&.:>"({.> b. 0) > m a,b > ----------T---------┐ > │1 0 2 3 4│4 2 3 1 0│ > L---------+---------- > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Henry Rich > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:28 PM > To: Programming forum > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] problem with under > > Different people have different standards of acceptable rigor, I reckon. > To me, the context isn't enough to overcome the inaccuracy of the > statement. > > FWIW, in my first post on this I had originally typed 'wrong' and > replaced it with 'misleading', following much the train of thought you > have offered. I still think Ye Dic is wrong; but I'm dead certain it is > misleading. > > I think the current language is a holdover from the days before &.: . > Now I can say that > > u&.v is u&.:v"({. v b. 0) > > but back then there was no notation for that idea, and the Dictionary > just came close and was content. I think readers deserve better now. > > Henry Rich > > On 10/26/2011 9:09 PM, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Henry Rich<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think it's fair to say the Dictionary is misleading because > >> > >> a. it contains a line that is not true; > > > > It's only "not true" when taken out of context -- you have to (a) > > ignore preceding material, and then (b) generalize a remaining > > statement and believe it covers the case treated by that preceding > > material > > > > This is somewhat like saying that a dictionary is wrong for claiming > > that "light" means "not weighing much" because someone who was not a > > native speaker was confused because they needed to treat a context > > having to do with illumination. > > > > It's only wrong if you overgeneralize. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
