I am now working on fsoj 39 about cyphers. There are 2 separate but slightly related issues I need help with.
Issue #1) The following code in fsoj produces the result shown. cs=.29 15(cs&|@^)22 5 3 20 15 18 0 10 11 0 0 0 But current (64bit) J produces the following result. cs=.29 15(cs&|@^)22 5 3 20 15 18 6 10 11 24 14 9 Norman uses the fsoj result to lead into a short description of the problem which results and a fix for the problem which involves using the following adjustments. Instead of using enc=:cs&|@* Norman uses mul=.cs&|@* eenc=.mul/@# 5 eenc &> 22 5 3 20 15 18 13 22 11 24 10 15 The issue is that current J does not need the revision, but the rest of the fsoj is based on the such a need. I suspect a good alternative would be to use a well studied product of 2 large primes in place of the cs=.29 to show the problem exists and then use those 2 large primes in place of the 2 Norman uses later in the fsoj article ( 3551=53*67) . Comments on how to handle this question are sought here. If a pair of large primes are part of the suggestion, are there well studied or well publicized examples? Issue #2) A smaller detail related to Norman using every (&>) in his development of the solution to the problem above when applying the verb eenc. He justifies this choice on eenc NOT being a scalar verb. But if eenc is simply defined with rank 0 as eenc=:mul/@#"0 then every is unnecessary. My question is, should the rank 0 version be used instead? -- (B=) <-----my sig Brian Schott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
