Tracy Harms wrote:
>
> The input to p: is indeed singular; it is an array.
>
I disagree. An array is a gestalt. A conceptual basket for a plurality of
atoms.
Tracy Harms wrote:
>
> The output of p: is similarly singular; it is also an
> array. The output of p: is an array of primes.
>
"array of primes" - no. An array in which each element is a prime. You are
creating a double-plural, the same grammatical fault as double negative.
Array implied plurality. No need to heap it on. granted in English we say
bucket of apples. But English often fails in the precision needed in
Comp.Sci. More accurately, you have a bucket in which each element is an
apple.
Array of primes would be an array in which element had multiple primes.
Tracy Harms wrote:
>
> I recommend not envisioning some lower level
> unit-of-processing than the verb.
>
Ok, well what is the rank p:
The rank is 0, which means it operates in a non-plural fashion.
Tracy Harms wrote:
>
> In this instance, the primary verb p: accepts a
> numeric noun and produces a noun of the same datatype
> and shape, comprised of primes.
>
the primary verb p: accepts a single atom... period. The agreement mechanism
for monads is what accepts more than an atom.
Tracy Harms wrote:
>
> Thus, it is naturally
> called primes.
>
Thus ceiling should be renamed ceilings?
Thus increment should be renamed increments?
Principle: any verb of rank 0 needs a singular informal name, not plural.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Should-Primes-be-renamed-to-Nthprime--tf4595066s24193.html#a13119553
Sent from the J General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
