I think you need the inverse of h regardless of whether it contains any

But I guess the point is that you do not need the inverse of h until after
g has completed. And organizationally speaking doing the check right at the
start (at or near the top level) makes sense.


That said, was baffled by steps 2 and 3 here, until I took a look at

Now, I think the example h=: f&.:g should be introduced, to match that



On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Henry Rich <> wrote:

> Oops.  I meant h.
> g could matter, if it has a name, but it wouldn't participate in the
> inverse.
> I am thinking:
> 1. try to get an inverse for h, returning failure if h contains a name
> 2. see if g contains a name
> 3. create the h field of the derived verb to contain either inv(gs) or
> atop(inv(gs),ampco(fs,gs)) or 0 depending on how much was name-free
> 4. modify jtundco1 etc accordingly
> Henry
> On 9/18/2016 12:29 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Why would g matter, in this context?
>> Thanks,
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see
For information about J forums see

Reply via email to