Well, I thought that if it was effectively the same as inv defined as ^:_1 except faster then why not change the definition? But I got an error trying it.
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 8:57 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via General < [email protected]> wrote: > inv NB. already defined. > > ^:(_1) NB. ^: instead of ^. > > > unwords =: ;: b. _1 NB. not sure if Henry saying this is more efficient. > than (;: inv) > > unwords > > }:@;@(,&' '&.>"1) :.;: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 10:45:38 a.m. EDT, Don Guinn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Really interesting. So, I thought that maybe inv could be redefined as > (;:^._1). > But all I get is: > > inv_z_=.(;:^._1) > > |domain error > > | inv_z_=.( ;:^._1) > > t=:*(;:^._1) > > |domain error > > | t=:*( ;:^._1) > > (;:^._1) > > |domain error > > | ( ;:^._1) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
