The 'n' is for 'now', but it was a placeholder name anyway. Why 'Y:'?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2023, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 1:55 AM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote:
I will note that, with my proposed n:, this would be trivial: (0&, + ,&0)^:(2&^
n:)@1
I'm not sure I remember your proposal, but I imagine that Y: would be
a better name (for what I think this would be doing) than n:
(If x: was not already in use, then I imagine y: would have been a
better choice than Y: but that would be getting into hypothetical
changes in a hypothetical universe...)
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
