Correct.  Which is a property of the Operator.

Ak

On Fri., Jan. 6, 2023, 23:47 Devon McCormick, <devon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They are the same under tolerance:
> https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Help/Primer/Tolerance.
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 12:48 AM Ak O <akin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is strictly based on the tolerance properties of the Operator not
> the
> > Type of the Operands (Iyiabo's Prime Theorem).
> >
> >
> > (Integer) ,(Integer)         NB. The question we are asking is, are these
> > Terms the same?
> >      (17) -: (17)
> > 1
> >
> > (Floating) ,(Integer)      NB. So also we are asking, are these Terms the
> > same?
> >      (17.0)-:(17)
> > 1
> >
> >
> > Ak
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri., Jan. 6, 2023, 20:29 Don Kelly, <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > J has it right.
> > >
> > > (17+45+65+71+5) -: (17+45+65+71+5) is the match between two integer
> > > sums-each of which gives the integer result as they have the same
> boolean
> > > representation and are equal-giving a "1" result
> > >
> > > (17.36+45.24+65.87+71.20+5.00) -: (17+45+65+71+5) is an attempt to
> > compare
> > > a floating point number with an integer-the result is floating point
> and
> > a
> > > "0" result
> > >
> > >   +/ 17.36  45.24  65.87 71.20 5.00
> > >
> > > 204.67
> > >
> > > (+/17+45+65+71+5)
> > >
> > > 203
> > >
> > >
> > >   Don Kelly
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2023-01-05 4:06 a.m., Ak O wrote:
> > > > These are both certainly Terms of Degree 2.
> > > > They are not equalities. They are not the same Term.
> > > >
> > > > The point I mean to highlight is the represention (for the purpose of
> > > > calculation).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 16/32 is not 15/30 is not 8/16. An equivalence is 1/2. It should
> never
> > be
> > > > mistaken for Expression Linear /Logarithmic.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is in cases where you apply an equivalence simplification
> > > > improperly sequence wise.
> > > > You loss coherence of the expression, (which often leads to settling
> on
> > > on
> > > > approximation  where resolution can be achieved).
> > > >
> > > > This is what we think we are saying.
> > > >       (17+45+65+71+5) -: (17+45+65+71+5)
> > > > 1
> > > > This is what we are actually saying.
> > > >       (17.36+45.24+65.87+71.20+5.00) -: (17+45+65+71+5)
> > > > 0
> > > > Or worse
> > > >       (17.99+45.99+65.99+71.99+5.99 ) -: (17+45+65+71+5)
> > > > 0
> > > >
> > > > In part, this is why the full representation should be favoured.
> > > >
> > > > Particularly for unknown cases where it is common to reach for
> > > Infinities.
> > > >
> > > > I am rambling now. Let me know if this is not clear.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ak
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed., Jan. 4, 2023, 22:18 Raul Miller,<rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:24 PM Ak O<akin...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>>       File -> Wed Jan 4 03:40:07UTC 2023
> > > >>> The statement:
> > > >>>       So, there's no difference in Degree 1 2 1 0 0 0 and 1 2 1...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is not correct. These should not be seen as equalities.
> > > >> That's an interesting perspective.
> > > >>
> > > >> It seems to me that both of these are polynomials of degree 2.  If
> > > >> they should have different degrees, what degrees should they have?
> And
> > > >> how would this be consistent with the opening sentence at
> > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_a_polynomial#:
> > > >>
> > > >> "In mathematics, the degree of a polynomial is the highest of the
> > > >> degrees of the polynomial's monomials (individual terms) with
> non-zero
> > > >> coefficients."
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Raul
> > > >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> For information about J forums seehttp://
> www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > > >>
> > > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > For information about J forums seehttp://
> 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
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Devon McCormick, CFA
>
> Quantitative Consultant
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to