Hey Matt, It's all good. The ideas breathe better when they are passed around. :-)
My plan is to develop a lab that explains these concepts a bit more clearly. In that process, I may find that the "inner/outer" terms make for much easier understanding, but I also know that having to struggle to justify change is not a bad thing. I appreciate that the idea resonates with you and that makes it worth exploring. Cheers, bob > On Jan 19, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Matthew Baulch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry. Thanks for that correction. I quite like Robert's suggestion, though > I took it on board without adequate attribution. Wasn't trying to be > sneaky, though I see it might appear that way. > > Pairing 'outer shape' and 'cell shape' does seem a bit unnatural. I think > we need a phrase like > (i) the argument's 'frame of cells', or > (ii) the argument's 'inner and outer shapes'. > > The decision is not mine, but I can't see how adopting 'outer' on its own > is wise. > > Here's an idea: > > An argument has inner cells, each with shape 'inner shape'. Any argument > must always have one outer cell. It has shape 'outer shape'. > > Any thoughts? > The alternative to frame / cell shape being discussed is outer shape / cell > shape, not outer shape / inner shape. I don't believe anyone has used > "inner shape" before (and it's not as good as "cell shape"). > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Matthew Baulch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
