On 10/13/07, metaperl.j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Atoms are without dimension. A series of atoms "forms" a list. But this is a
> paradox. How can something come from nothing? A list has a shape indicating
> how many nothings it has :wistle::confused:
Points to ponder:
Are atoms without "dimension", or without "dimensions"?
Do arrays "come from" their dimensions at all? If so, how?
* * * * *
That said, I am not certain I agree with your "A list has a shape indicating
how many nothings it has."
Arrays have shape, lists have length. A difference is that "length"
is a numeric atom, while shape is a numeric list (# vs. $). But even
if we choose to represent the length of a list as a shape, that shape
still does not list how many nothings it has -- instead it represents
how many somethings the list has. Sure, those somethings in turn
lack something else. But that does not make something into nothing.
Would you say that since you have no blue whales you are nothing?
If so, is there any object or feature that a person could lack and still
be someone?
Anyways, from my point of view, the absence of a dimension simply
means that the measurement associated with that particular dimension
is irrelevant.
> I guess the idea is to maintain a frame of reference. Beheading always
> returns a table even if that table is absent of data.
More specifically, beheading a table always returns a table, even
if there is nothing left in that table. However, beheading a rank 1
list would not return a table. You knew this already -- so is this
an example of a paragraph which represents no new information
for you?
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
