On 30 March 2012 01:01, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > ............
This time I am not going to answer everything in sequence ... I'll start with where I was apparently mistaken: the expression f(g(x)), with x an adverb, indeed can be equivalent to f@g, as you asserted. So, ok, J lets us express f@g in this peculiar form. But we were, at that point, discussing whether there are compositions in J other than @, and the above, being a syntactic variant of an application of @, does not contribute to resolving the issue. As for the rest of your last, and previous comments to my posts, I find in them too much quibbling about petty details, misreading my words, and drifting away from the essence of the original topic. I'll only give one example from the very beginning of your last post. >>>>>> (f∘g)(x) ≡ f(g(x)) > In the original definition, which led us to this point, there > was no statement that f and g had domains. Are there functions without domains? Since when is it customary to explicitly enunciate such minutiae? I have allowed myself several times to engage in disputes with you on the J forums. Feeling dissatisfied with the experience, in the future I will avoid doing so. From now on, I will not comment your posts, and will be grateful if you do reciprocally. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
