Ah, you are correct -- H works -- I was careless there. (I do not know what I was thinking.)
As for Maclaurin series -- it's often tempting to try for a more general implementation, but we do not have any such implementation. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:52 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > To my knowledge H. was undisturbed. What doesn't work? > > My view is that 'Taylor' series was a mistake, because it was too > restricted. It should have been called 'Maclaurin series'. If somebody > really needs it, it's not too hard to write a replacement, is it? > > Henry Rich > > On 1/24/2022 8:25 AM, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:30 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I therefore propose a 'transpose-ish' family of conjunctions. Say: t. t: > >> t.. t:: (RIP Taylor series). u t. n brings axis n to the front (brings it > >> near) before applying u; u t.. n brings axis n to the rear (brings it far, > >> hence the longer suffix); u t: n brings axis n to the front before > >> applying u, but returns it afterwards (hence two dots); t:: should be > >> obvious. > > I think that the removal of support for taylor series and > > hypergeometric was premature. > > > > (1) It breaks old code, but more importantly, > > > > (2) We do not have adequate library replacements. > > > > Introducing new primitives reusing their tokens would aggravate the > > compatibility issue. > > > > That said, what's wrong with using transpose here? > > > > (%+/&.:*:&|:) V > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
